Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon 17 May.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] By
Order

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon 17 May.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By
Order)

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (By
Order)

Orders for Second Reading, read.

To be read a Second time upon 17 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Debt Rescheduling

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with other Finance Ministers regarding countries rescheduling of debt; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I attended the meeting of the IMF interim committee on April 12, where international debt problems were among the matters discussed. It is likely that this is one of the subjects we shall be discussing at the London economic summit next month.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that, in view of the recent rise in interest rates, especially in the United States, and mirrored over here, the rescheduling debt of those countries could be increased by as much as $3.5 billion for every 1 per cent. rise? Will he also confirm that at the economic summit there is likely to be discussion of a proposal for two-tier interest rates, so that the bankers can save their own skins? If the bankers and Governments together are prepared to distort market forces to look after themselves, why can we not have lower interest rates on a two-tier basis for worthy causes at home, to reduce the dole queue?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is not altogether accurate when he says that the rise in American interest rates has been mirrored over here. There has been a rise in this country, but it has been very much less. Since 14 March, when the base rate went down to 8 1/2 per cent. in this country, United States interest rates have risen by 1 1/2 per cent.; here they have risen by between 1/2 and 3/4 per cent. Our interest rates are well below American interest rates for the first time ever. Nevertheless, it is an unwelcome increase, small as it is.
As for the two-tier system, I have read rumours in the newspapers about it, but I know of no such proposals being made at the London summit or elsewhere. Finally, and here the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, the high level of American interest rates is a very real problem for the debtor countries.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept, with regard to the Argentine debts, that the Americans may have been seeking to preserve the future of the international banking system and perhaps also to reflect on the emergent democracy in Buenos Aires, or does he think that these debts ought to be marked by the commercial banks as non-performing in default?

Mr. Lawson: I think that what the Americans had in mind, among other things, was to try to coax the Argentines into an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. It is most important that there should be an agreement and I am afraid there is no sign of one at present. The British Government are clear that Argentina will have to abide by the rules which other debtor countries have had to abide by if it wishes to receive assistance from the Western countries.

Merchant Seamen (Tax Concessions)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effect of the withdrawal of overseas earnings tax concessions on British merchant seamen.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I have met representatives of the General Council of British Shipping and the seamen's unions. I and my colleagues have received some 300 letters from seafarers and their families.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the withdrawal of the overseas tax concessions will result in a net reduction in the incomes of many merchant seamen? In view of the acceleration that this may give to the already alarming decline in the size of our Merchant Navy, will he consider trying to find some way of extending to merchant seamen the concessions enjoyed by British overseas residents, who have to be abroad for only 302 days to qualify for full relief?

Mr. Moore: I am aware of the difficulties facing our shipping industry. We all have respect and sympathy for seafarers, but I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be difficult to ask the tax system—that means taxpayers—specifically to seek to help a particular work force. To that extent, we must get the figures in perspective. We are talking about 3+ per cent. of the total wage costs of the shipping industry, which is about half of 1 per cent. of the industry's total costs. We must get that figure in perspective. It does impact negatively on seafarers.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the Chancellor's avowed intention to reduce tax levels, is not it inconsistent that an able-bodied seaman in the next tax year may lose £10 per week of income? That figure will rise to £35-£40 for senior masters. Is the Minister aware that that will put us at a disadvantage with our competitors in other merchant navies? Can the Chancellor at least make an increase in the fixed allowance to take into account the fact that these men are away from home most of the year and lack the social and educational advantages that other members of the community enjoy?

Mr. Moore: I shall not try to answer all those points, but I remind the House that the combined effects of the Budget in 1984–85 on a married rating who is on average pay and is spending 200 qualifying days away, will result in an increase of £1.10 per week. I recognise the difficulties, but the reliefs were the product of high marginal tax rates which were sought to be relieved in this way. No one in the House wants to see reliefs of this sort, as opposed to people being paid properly by employers.

Mr. Cormack: Why cannot members of the Merchant Navy be treated in the same way as members of the Royal Navy?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that members of the Royal Navy do not benefit in any way from these reliefs. In fact, the reliefs affect only 45,000 of the 65,000 members of the merchant marine.

Mr. Parry: Is the Financial Secretary aware that one of my young constituents—a seaman—will lose more than £500 a year because of the proposals? Is it not disgraceful that seaman—men who work abroad to earn their living—are bracketed with the idle rich who spend half their time on world cruises or in their villas abroad?

Mr. Moore: Nobody is seeking in any way to deny the respect that we all have for the seafarers of our country. However, the reliefs were introduced at a time of high marginal rates, to help the export drive in 1977. The abolition of those high marginal rates has associated with it the removal of reliefs that are not now regarded as necessary. I remind the House of the figures in relation to an average able seaman, who is earning £155 per week. The combined effects of the Budget will mean a difference to him of £1.10 per week.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the representations that have been made from all quarters of the House, and the undesirability of the work of our merchant seamen passing into the hands of merchant seamen of other countries over whose conditions of employment we have so little influence, will the Minister undertake to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, to treat merchant seamen as a special category?

Mr. Moore: The House has spent a long time trying to remove special categories from the tax system. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that whether our seamen work for foreign or United Kingdom flags the tax system relates to their residency, and equal tax systems apply.

House Extensions (VAT)

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the consequences
of his decision to bring the construction of house extensions within the scope of value added tax on the level of the black economy.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Detailed estimates cannot be made.

Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is likely that the Government could lose a considerable amount of revenue because a number of cowboy builders may take advantage of the new circumstances? Ought he not to consider detailed estimates, because the measure may mean that the Government will lose, rather than raise, revenue?

Mr. Hayhoe: The fears that have been expressed, as I understand them, are very exaggerated. For example, home extension work is unlikely to go to the black economy, and the Budget changes made by my right hon. Friend will end the evasion of tax by the misdescription of repairs—which were, and still are, standard-rated—as alterations, which are zero-rated. Those misdescriptions must have cost the Revenue considerable amounts in the past, and that sort of evasion will, I hope, not now take place at all.

Mr. Maxton: How many extra Customs and Excise staff will be employed to collect this duty? How does this compare with the reduction in the number of Customs and Excise staff over the past five years, and in particular, of the staff who have been employed to ensure that hard drugs are not imported?

Mr. Hayhoe: The number of Customs and Excise staff involved in this change will be very small. What it will mean is that the staff already concerned with these matters will be able to spend more of their time on VAT control, rather than in sorting out some of the very difficult marginal cases between repairs and alterations.

Mr. Stanbrook: Would it not be fair to exempt from this tax at least those householders who signed contracts for the work to be done before 1 June and who have, unfortunately, not been able to get the work done before that date?

Mr. Hayhoe: As my hon. Friend may know, this matter was debated in the House during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on 30 April, and I gave an indication then that my right hon. Friend, myself and others will be considering the points made in the debate. I made it clear that I said that without any commitment to any change in taxation arrangements.

Mr. Hattersley: Does not the initial answer that no detailed estimate can be made mean that the Government have no idea of the real consequences of the tax? Can the Government tell us, for instance, how many small business men they anticipate will be made bankrupt? Can they tell us whether they share the view of the industry that it will result in at least 35,000 unemployed men and women who were previously working in the industry?

Mr. Hayhoe: The fact that one cannot make a detailed estimate of tax evasion should not come as something strange to the right hon. Gentleman, who has had some experience of government. If one knew precisely where all the tax evasion was going on, of course the resources of the Customs, and of the Revenue department, would be deployed against that evasion. What I do know, from the careful judgments that we have made, is that overall one
would expect this not to increase evasion because we are removing the difficult dividing line between repairs and alterations.

Economic Forecasts

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use he makes of forecasts by other economic forecasters.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): The Treasury monitors a wide range of outside forecasts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that of the 19 forecasters who have recently published their findings in the Financial Times, only four forecast a reduction in inflation in 1985, and that one of those was the Treasury itself and another its sycophantic supporters at Liverpool university? Why do the Government not take more notice of Professor Wynne Godley and the Cambridge school, because they, every year since 1978, have been absolutely right in their predictions about the level of unemployment and the reduction in manufacturing output? Why do Government supporters laugh when they know that that is the truth?

Mr. Rees: As the hon. GentLeman has singled out one forecaster, I am bound to say that Professor Wynne Godley's forecasts do not compare favourably with those of the Treasury and that in fact most outside forecasts since the autumn statement have been moving closer to that of the Treasury. The Treasury was a little over-pessimistic about the reduction of inflation last year. Other outside forecasters were a good deal more pessimistic. The Treasury has been proved more right than them.

Sir William Clark: While talking about forecasts, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to refute the forecast that the Government have any intention of altering the tax arrangements for pensions during the passage of the Finance Bill through Standing Committee?

Mr. Rees: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Treasury study these forecasts in respect of the effect on the British economy of the movement of the pound sterling on the various foreign exchanges and, if so, will the Treasury now make more plain the Government's exchange rate policy so that business confidence here is not shattered by sudden and erratic movements in exchange rates?

Mr. Rees: I and my right hon. Friends have made the Government's policy on exchange rates very clear.

Mr. Latham: Did not the economic forecast on the rate of inflation made at the last general election by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), leave a good deal to be desired?

Mr. Rees: That is certainly a forecast to which we did not pay a great deal of attention, but, in case the right hon. Gentleman would prefer the House to forget it, I remind the House that he forecast that if a Conservative Government were returned inflation would double by the end of 1983.

Mr. Gould: What changes in the Treasury forecast will have to be made as a result of the rise in interest rates?

Mr. Rees: That depends on how long that change persists. It may be a temporary fluctuation.

Company Cars

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since the Budget on the increase in tax on company cars.

Mr. Moore: Since Budget day my right hon. Friend has received 40 letters and representations on this subject.

Mr. Miller: Does the Minister understand the widespread resentment among salesmen and managers over the special tax treatment of a tool of their trade as a perk, especially when so many other perks go untaxed, such as coal for miners and travel concessions? Will he therefore examine the possibility either of introducing a staged tax relating to the number of miles of business use, or of putting an upper limit on this seemingly unending increase in taxation?

Mr. Moore: I am always ready to consider points made by my hon. Friend, who has a tremendous interest in and commitment to the car industry. However, the benefits concerned are quite obviously seen in advertisements as being attractive. For example, today a basic rate taxpayer receiving from his firm a 1600 Sierra would pay tax of £144 a year on that benefit, which does not seem to be the real value. We are seeking to move towards realistic levels of all benefits as regards their tax equality with ordinary cash remuneration.

Mr. Park: When will the Government stop using the car industry as a milch cow? The Government continue to allow adverse tariffs against our exports, a to apply a special tax only to cars and motor bikes, and to tax customers who, in the main, buy British cars. When will the Government change their policy?

Mr. Moore: In so far as the question relates to the taxation of perks on cars, I have covered the relatively low taxation in relation to the value of the perk. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join us in welcoming the enormous current success of our car industry and, like him, I would encourage people to buy British cars. Car production in 1983 was over 1 million for the first time since 1979. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that, as well as the successful launch of the Metro, Maestro and Montego, and the fact that BL's productivity is now comparable, again, with the best in Europe.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that these tax changes bear heavily on middle management, who are so vital to our industrial recovery? Does he accept that this increased burden would be much more readily acceptable if the Treasury was even-handed in its taxation of perks? Is there not particular resentment that coal miners' free coal is not taxed? May we assume from his earlier reply that my hon. Friend is considering taxing those other perks in future Budgets?

Mr. Moore: The Government's policy is quite clear. Let me remind my hon. Friend of what I said a few moments ago. Our policy is to move gradually towards realistic taxation of perks to ensure that all benefits in kind are taxed equally with cash remuneration.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor whether he will receive a delegation from
the United Commercial Travellers Association section of ASTMS, which regards the representative's company car as a tool of the trade and believes that a vigorous, hardworking section will be severely handicapped if the tax is increased?

Mr. Moore: I have acknowledged the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), and I recognise the aspect of the question to which the hon. Member has addressed himself. If approached by delegations, I shall certainly consider what is obviously an important topic to those who regard company cars as a vital tool of their trade.

Inflation

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest forecast for the rate of inflation over the next 12 months.

Mr. Lawson: The latest forecast suggests retail price inflation will fall to around 4 per cent. by this time next year.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we must keep the present low and stable rate of inflation if industry is to have the confidence to invest and provide jobs? Is it not disturbing, therefore, that material costs to industry have increased by over 8 per cent. in the last year, and is that not a timely reminder that we simply cannot relax our efforts in the fight against rising prices?

Mr. Lawson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's last point. That is indeed a central plank of the Government's economic policy. The increase in input prices to which he referred is largely a reflection of the rise in the value of the dollar, which means that certain commodities that manufacturers have had to import, particularly oil, have cost more. However, unit labour costs have risen very little, because of the large increase in the productivity of British industry generally and manufacturing industry in particular. Of course, considerable restraint must be imposed on pay increases, because the unit labour costs of some of our major competitors have actually fallen.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What will be the cause of this 4 per cent. inflation? Will it have anything to do with money supply?

Mr. Lawson: Yes.

Mr. Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he is to achieve his inflation forecast for the coming year it is vital to continue public sector pay restraint, especially in central and local government?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, that is indeed the case. The Government are anxious to keep a firm grip on public expenditure, of which public sector pay is an important part.

Mr. Ashton: Would not a massive cut in electricity prices bring down inflation even faster, keep jobs open in the coal industry and help industry in general? Should we not stop talking nonsense about coal industry support putting 1p on income tax when electricity is making massive profits? Does not any business man with surplus stocks cut the price to get rid of them? The Government should stop taxing electricity, when miners are being pushed out of work.

Mr. Lawson: Subsidies are no route to bringing down inflation. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that low-cost energy is important, and that means low-cost coal in particular.

Mr. Maples: Is my right hon. Friend concerned that the recent rise in interest rates, the continued strength of the dollar and the high level of private sector lending may have adverse consequences for inflation, or is he still confident about his forecast?

Mr. Lawson: I am never wholly confident about any forecast, although, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has pointed out, the Treasury's track record is considerably better than those of most, if not all, outside forecasting bodies. To that extent, I am confident about the forecast. The money supply—both broad and narrow—is well within the target range. There is no cause for concern on that score. Focusing exclusively on bank lending, which is only one component of the money supply, is likely to lead to a mistaken conclusion.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the importance attached to the level of interest rates by the Chancellor and by this Administration, is not the point raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) a bitter blow to the Government's strategy? Will not the forecast of higher interest rates lead to lower investment and higher prices, and what does the Chancellor intend to do about it?

Mr. Lawson: I have made no forecast of higher interest rates to come. Of course the recent increase in base rates is unwelcome, but it is not a bitter blow. There will always be fluctuations in interest rates if the Government are concerned, as this Government are, to maintain control of monetary conditions, especially in the light of what has been happening in the United States. We have been able to keep our interest rates well below those of the United States, but we cannot be wholly immune to what has been happening there. The hon. Gentleman asked about the prospect for investment. I was very glad to see that the most recent CBI forecast suggested that there would be a 7 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment this year.

Economic Progress

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: The combination of steady growth and low inflation that we are currently enjoying has not been seen since the 1960s.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not a fact that the economy is already being affected by the dispute in the coal mining industry and that that is likely to cause a rapid deterioration before long? Does the Chancellor not agree that it would therefore be financially and economically advantageous at least to consider, if not to meet, the present demands of the miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—especially as the other coal-producing countries in the EC receive greater subsidies? Will the right hon. Gentleman make the strongest possible representations to the Prime Minister on this aspect of the economy?

Mr. Lawson: The effects on the economy are very slight and will continue to be very slight, largely because of the substantial stocks of coal at the power stations. The


treatment of the miners by the National Coal Board has been very fair—some would even say generous. The levels of pay are high, the increase offered is very generous, and the redundancy terms for those made redundant as a result of pit closures are extremely generous.
The hon. Gentleman referred to coal industries overseas. No other country in Europe is investing anything like as much in its coal industry as we are, and that is important for the future. However, at the same time as investment for the future there must inevitably be closures of aging and grossly uneconomical pits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows the industry very well, knows in his heart that that is true.

Mr. Higgins: As movements in the United Kingdom monetary aggregates are satisfactory, and as my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear in his evidence to the Select Committee that he has no target for the exchange rate and no intention of acting to protect it against external factors, why does he think interest rates are rising, and what effect does he think this it will have on the economy?

Mr. Lawson: As I said, we, any more than any other country, cannot be wholly immune to what is happening to interest rates in the United States if we are concerned to maintain proper control of monetary conditions. I was interested to read that Herr Karl Otto Pùhl; of the German Bundesbank had made a similar remark in London yesterday. As I said in my evidence to the very eminent Select Committee that my right hon. Friend chairs, although we do not have a target for the exchange rate, we take it into account in pursuing our monetary policy.

Mr. James Callaghan: While thanking the Chancellor for his tribute to my Chancellorship in the 1960s when there was steady growth, high investment and a much higher sterling rate than there is today, may I ask him to take into account the fact that at that time unemployment was at record low levels? Will he accept that he cannot take credit for his Chancellorship until he can do something about the present disastrous unemployment figures?

Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment at present is appallingly high, but he is a fair man and knows full well that the rise in unemployment over the past 20 years has occurred throughout the world and not simply in this country. He was referring to the 1960s which was 20 years ago. [Interruption.] I do not know whether Opposition Members can count or not, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, can, because he had to for that job.
The rise in unemployment has been worldwide. However, there are signs of an improvement in the labour market and I draw attention, in particular, to the fact that between March and December last year—the most recent period for which figures are available—the numbers in work increased by some 200,000.

Mr. Eggar: In view of the importance of the United States interest rates to the level of our base rates, what action will my right hon. Friend take in conjunction with other European countries, to try to persuade the United States to reduce its deficit?

Mr. Lawson: There have been a number of discussions with the United States authorities about that. There is some

sign of a welcome change in the attitude of the American Government towards their deficit. As my hon. Friend will know, they have now decided to make what they call a downpayment, a $150 billion reduction in the deficit over three years. Their description of it as a downpayment leads to the inference that further reductions are yet to come. The matter may well be discussed at the London summit next month.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when considering the exchange rate policy which he announced earlier, not ensure that the exchange rates took some of the strain, rather than allowing interest rates to rise, to the disadvantage of industry in general?

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were ever again a Treasury Minister he would indeed have the satisfaction — to him — of seeing a substantial devaluation of the pound. I should have thought that his experience as a Treasury Minister would have taught him that there is no satisfaction through that route.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that there has never been a Labour Government who have succeeded in bringing about a reduction in unemployment? Does he agree that it therefore must he a source of considerable comfort to those looking for work that a Conservative Government are in power?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Moreover, there has not been a Labour Government who have not had an average rate of inflation during their term of office higher than the rate of inflation of the preceding Government. This Government have broken that trend. Inflation has come down. The economy is recovering and the employment picture is now gradually improving, although I readily agree that it has a lot further to go.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Chancellor aware that industralists do not share his complacency about the rise in interest rates and that yesterday the chairman of the CBI said that the rise in interest rates could shatter the fragile recovery—as he described it—which is taking place this year? When will the Chancellor accept real responsibility for the control of this country's economy? When, instead of constantly blaming America, will he start to control interest rates himself and bring them down so that industry may continue to recover?

Mr. Lawson: I could be interested to learn how the hon. Lady imagines that she can precisely control interest rates and, indeed, what she thinks the consequences of that would be. The more considered verdict of British industry was that contained in the CBI April survey, which showed the most widespread improvement in manufacturing orders and output for seven years.

Stamp Duty

8. Mr. Thurnham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated income from stamp duty during the year 1983–84 (a) from property and (b) from other sources.

Mr. Peter Rees: £550 million from transactions in real property; and £590 million from other types of transactions.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measures in the Budget will improve
the workings of the property market and that many thousands of home buyers will benefit, especially first—time buyers?

Mr. Rees: I am happy to confirm my hon. Friend's comments on the measure. In fact, about 600,000 home buyers should benefit from the measure during the next year, and about 90 per cent. of them should be first—time home buyers.

Employee Share-owning Schemes

Mr. Greenway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms were operating employee share—owning schemes in 1974, 1979, and at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moore: By the end of April the number of employee share schemes approved by the Revenue for the purposes of tax relief had increased from 30—the comparable figure in 1979—to 689. Most of these schemes relate to a group of companies and the number of participating companies is estimated at well over 6,000— benefiting around 500,000 employees.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that I warmly welcome the increasing spread of wealth that is indicated by his reply? The figures are excellent. Does he agree that employee share—owning schemes are a much better way of increasing the distribution of wealth than Socialist state monopoly and nationalisation, which bring only higher taxes for each of us and which are advocated by the Labour party?

Mr. Moore: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The ways in which 500,000 employees are now not only benefiting financially but have a much better relationship and commitment to their place of work should be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the Minister agree that the biggest single handicap to the development of employee share schemes will be the restrictive guidelines issued by pension funds, life assurance companies and other institutional investors through the investment protection committee, which are so restrictive as severely to limit the extent to which companies can develop employee share schemes? Will the Minister make it clear to those institutions that that is against the public interest?

Mr. Moore: Without further details, I should not want to dictate to the IPC its role. I shall examine any points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he will welcome, as all hon. Members should, the extension beyond the original 1·5 million shareholders of the additional 500,000 shareholders through employee share schemes in the past four years.

Falkland Islands

10. Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent payments have been made out of the Contingency Fund in relation to health services in the Falklands.

Mr. Peter Rees: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Treasury's estimated replacement cost of the Falklands hospital—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the estimate in his brief—over £10 million?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's eyesight has obviously improved in the past week. He is not reading from my brief. I must tell the House that it is too soon to say what the cost of replacing the hospital will be. An architect is now in the Falklands to advise the Falkland Islands Government if the options available to them. The question of funding is still under consideration.

Taxation

11. Mr. Pike: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of earnings is now paid by the average wage earner (a) in direct taxation and (b) in indirect taxation; and how this compares with 1978–79.

Mr. Hayhoe: For a married man on average earnings with two children the percentage of earnings taken in income tax and national insurance contributions less child benefit is expected to be 21·7 per cent. in 1984–85, compared to 21·2 per cent. in 1978–79. Assuming that he has the consumption pattern of a typical family man at average earnings, he will pay 12·2 per cent. of his gross earnings in indirect taxes, excluding local authority rates, this year compared to 10·8 per cent. in 1978–79.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that the majority of those on average or lower than average wages, and certainly those who are not earning, are now paying more in taxes as a result of the Government's change in policies on direct taxation since they were elected? Will he accept that it is time for a change of direction to benefit the lower-paid and average—paid rather than retaining the present Government policy, which benefits those earning well above the average?

Mr. Hayhoe: By concentrating the income tax changes on raising the basic allowance, my right hon. Friend has helped the lower paid. Moreover, it must be remembered that the real rise in earnings that has been taking place means that all those whose earnings have risen in line with the national average have real take—home pay now that is 8 per cent. higher than in 1978–79.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will not assist the wage earner and the entrepreneur if the Chancellor decides to take into tax private pension schemes, which will discriminate against those who want to protect their families and, furthermore, not allow them to be a burden on the state? Moreover, will my hon. Friend deny the rumours that he intends to do that?

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary gave a categorical assurance on the matter earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister say when he expects the tax burden, either indirectly or directly, measured in either real terms or as a proportion, to get back to what it was in 1978–79?

Mr. Hayhoe: No. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that estimate, but I can give him the clear prophecy that if ever a labour Government are returned there will be higher taxes, higher borrowing and higher interest rates.

European Community (Lending)

12. Mr. Marlow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist for lending money to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Rees: The Commission has no general powers to borrow. It has, however, been empowered by the Council to borrow in the markets on behalf of the Community in order to on—lend for certain specific projects.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a simple and clear undertaking to the House today that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government consider or agree to a loan to the European Community to pay this year's financial over run, because if he does not give such an undertaking today people will assume that we would be prepared to consider such a loan?

Mr. Rees: No such assumption should be made. As, in the present circumstances, it has not been demonstrated that savings could not be made, it is far too early, in the Government's view, to consider such a loan.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend, at this critical time in the coal industry dispute, reiterate her confidence in and commitment to the long—term future of the coal industry? Does she agree that customers, not subsidies, will guarantee success?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. This Government want a prosperous coal industry. To that end, we believe that the pay offer that has been made, amounting to wages of 25 per cent. above average industrial wages, the excellent investment record, amounting to £2 million a day in good new coal mines, and the good voluntary redundancy payments are the best ever and offer very good prospects for the future of the coal industry if people will go to work and cut the coal to meet the orders that have recently been obtained.

Mr. Steel: Is not the Prime Minister not troubled by the growing violence this week at Ravenscraig and Hunterston between pickets and the police, and by the warnings from the British Steel chairman about the long—term threat to the steel industry if the disruption goes on? Does she accept that Ministers have a responsibility in this deteriorating climate to try to bring the parties together, rather than to act as idle spectators at a tug—of—war in which the British economy is the rope?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must wholly and utterly condemn violence and its use to further industrial ends. We hope that it will be reduced. We must also congratulate the police on the way in which they have carried out their duty of seeing that those who wish to get to their place of work shall be able to get there. The way ahead is to condemn the violence and to see that those who practise it cease to do so.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that applications by industry for the coal conversion

scheme have fallen from about 20 a month before the troubles to just three a month now? Is it not just another proof that if our coal industry is to have a secure future it is essential that markets be first won and then secured?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have macte available a subsidy for industries which wish to turn to coal as a means of providing the energy that they require. Clearly, industries which turn to coal must have the guarantee of security of supply or they will not make the change. Indeed, ICI has deferred until the end of the strike a decision on whether to use coal. Should that company agree to use coal, it will mean another 1,000 jobs in coalpits in Durham—exactly where the jobs are needed. It is another instance of an order waiting to be picked up, if those in the coal industry will only do so.

Mr. Benn: When will the Prime Minister realise that she will never starve the miners into accepting a programme of mass pit closures that will deny the nation the coal that it needs for the prosperity of our industry?

The Prime Minister: During 11 years the Labour Government closed 300 pits. The Conservative Government have closed only 92. Is the right hon. Gentleman disowning previous Labour Governments? Many miners, fortunately, are exercising their right to go to work and are producing coal. If others exercise their right to work, we shall have a good, prosperous industry. Apart from that, those who are not working have so far lost about £220 million in wages, and I hope that they will soon return to work.

Mr. Madden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Madden: Will the Prime Minister confirm that police experts have now identified one of the guns found at the Libyan People's Bureau as the weapon used in the killing of a Libyan in this country some time ago? In those circumstances, will she establish an independent inquiry into the activities of diplomats at the bureau and the circumstances which led to the siege? In the same context, will she cancel her meeting with the Prime Minister of South Africa in protest at the unacceptable activities of South African diplomats, because the vast majority of people in this country are repelled by the evils of apartheid?

The Prime Minister: The answer with regard to both the independent inquiry and South Africa is no in each case.

Mr. John Carlisle: After another night of mindless violence on the Continent—this time in Brussels—will my right hon. Friend send a message of apology to the Belgian Government? Will she also send a message to the Belgian magistrates that, when these thugs come up before them, they should show no mercy towards them and that, if they consider it necessary, they should keep these thugs in custody for yet another football season, as that would certainly please the British people?

The Prime Minister: I think that we are all deeply concerned about the violence displayed in Brussels last night and wholly and utterly condemn it. There have been a number of cases of violence. This time it was not in the


stadium, but took place both before and after the match. A special committee was set up after previous examples of violence in Luxembourg. It will report shortly. I am happy to take my hon. Friend's invitation and condemn the violence. It was a disgrace to Britain and we deeply apologise for it.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a line in a well—known prayer, which she recited to the nation in 1979,
grant that I may seek … to understand rather than to be understood
still guides her in her duties? If so, will she now intervene in the miners dispute as the only possible way of breaking the deadlock? Will she cease to play the role of Pontius Pilate by washing her hands of the dispute? Is that not the way to seek greater understanding?

The Prime Minister: I seek both to understand and to be understood. I hope that I do not have great difficulty in either. I believe that the way to end the coal dispute is by taking advantage of the consultation procedures which exist and which are being attended by some of the miners unions.

Mr. Richard Body: In the course of today, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the answer to the written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) regarding the vast quantities of surpluses still being exported to Soviet Russia? In particular, will she consider the vast quantities of wine sold at only 2½p a pint? So long as wine is sent to Russia at 2½p a pint on such a vast scale, can we say that there is any reason for an increase in the own resources of the EEC?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, decisions on the export of surplus foodstuffs and wine in Europe are taken by a management committee. Those decisions are taken by a majority. Although we vote against them, we are not able to stop exports at highly subsidised prices. We disagree with those decisions and hope eventually to persuade others likewise. In the meantime, what my hon. Friend says reinforces the Government's present attitude and approach. This time, as part of the budget settlement, we must have strict financial guidelines on expenditure for ensuing years, including for agricultural expenditure.

Mr. Kinnock: As the Government have had the report and recommendations of the independent review body on nurses pay since early April, will the Prime Minister say why she is making the nurses wait for several more weeks before telling them whether she will honour the report's recommendations?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the time taken to decide on review bodies' reports in general is in keeping with what happened previously. Obviously, we like to consider them all together.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those who report on review bodies do not have the duty of Governments who have to examine not only the amount recommended but how the money will be found.

Mr. Kinnock: But that still does not explain why it will be two months or more between the time of the submission of the report and when the Prime Minister says she may make an announcement. Does the right hon. Lady not understand that nurses deserve a higher pay rise—one well above the current rate of inflation—and that she has no plausible reason whatever for denying that or continuing the delay? Why does the Prime Minister not announce now that she will honour the report and the figure recommended in it?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard my reply. We now have all the reports of the top salary review body and the special review bodies. We like to consider them together and to ensure that we know where the money will come from to meet whatever recommendations are made. That is a sound financial principle.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since we came to office nurses' pay increased by over 80 per cent., which is ahead of both average earnings and prices. In addition, nurses have benefited from a reduced working week. This Government have a very good record on nurses' pay.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister would agree that nurses are worth everything that they can get. In her answer, was the Prime Minister suggesting that nurses' pay is in any way dependent on the allocations which she may choose to make to people on some of the highest salaries in the land? If so, things are much worse than we thought. It really is time that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that no other considerations about top salaries can inhibit the proper pay settlement which nurses deserve.

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman attempts to put words in my mouth, but he will not succeed. I merely suggest that we shall examine all the review bodies' reports together. Before we make a pronouncement, we shall know exactly where the resources will come from.
Of course, a Labour Government would not consider where the money would come from. They would only try to pay it out and jolly soon they would go back to the IMF. Indeed, we are now paying back money which they borrowed.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm her support for the refusal of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to intervene in the recent dispute between the owner and editor of The Observer, despite the urgings of the Opposition, whose noisy clamour on that contrasts deafeningly with their silence on the current issue of freedom of the press at the Daily Express in the light of the SOGAT issue?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that I wholly agree with the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the matter relating to The Observer. We stand four square behind the freedom of the press. That freedom would soon be lost if threats to production succeeded in obtaining space in a newspaper for the propagation of particular points of view.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of recent press speculation, will my right hon. Friend tell me what respective importance she places on fiscal neutrality and the continuing encouragement to the self—employed and others to make provision for their own retirement through tax relief on their contributions?

The Prime Minister: The two are not mutually exclusive and can be accommodated together.

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: In the light of recent announcements by the Soviet Union, Algeria and Bulgaria, and in view of the bad example that the Prime Minister set the world with her

own botched—up attempt at an Olympic boycott in 1980, will she now give Government support to the setting up of a permanent Olympic site in Greece, perhaps with United Nations status?

The Prime Minister: Conditions for the Olympics were different in 1980. The hon. Gentleman may recall that they took place soon after the Soviet Union had entered Afghanistan, which it still occupies. That is different from the conditions under which the Olympics are to be held this year in Los Angeles. We greatly regret the apparent decision by the Soviet national Olympics committee not to participate in the Olympics. We hope that it will reconsider it.
The question whether there should be a permanent place in which to hold the Olympics is a matter for the Olympics committee, not Her Majesty's Government.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 MAY—Progress on Report stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Motion relating to the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations.
TUESDAY 15 MAY—Completion of Report stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Motions on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 16 MAY—Until about seven o'clock, Third Reading of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Afterwards a debate on Hong Kong, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
THURSDAY 17 MAY—Until about seven o'clock, Report stage of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill. Motion for the Spring Adjournment.
Second Reading of the County Courts Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
FRIDAY 18 MAY—Second Reading of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Foreign Limitation Periods Bill [Lords], the Somerset House Bill [Lords], and the Fosdyke Bridge Bill [Lords].
MONDAY 21 MAY — Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Afterwards, Third Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
Motion on EEC documents on fisheries. The relevant numbers will appear in the Official Report.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 25 May until Monday 4 June. [Fisheries Debate on 21 May.
Documents:

a. Total Allowable Catches for 1984 Document No. 11209/83 and Document No. 11209/83 Amendment 1.
b. North Sea Herring: Norway Document No. 4969/84.
c. Total Allowable Catches for 1984 (Amendment): Document No. 5390/84.
d. North Sea Herring: Interim—.
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

a. HC 78-xii (1983-84) paragraph 4.
b. HC 78-xvi (1983-84) paragraph 4.
c. HC 78-xx (1983-84) paragraph 5.
d. HC 78-xii (1983-84) paragraph 5.]

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist the House by ensuring that next Wednesday's debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House is extended until midnight so that all hon. Members who wish to hear the debate will be able to do so?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding to my request that the spring Adjournment motion debate be held at a reasonable hour, and express the hope that this will become normal practice.
Can the Leader of the House arrange for an Opposition Supply day during the week after next, as that will be the last opportunity to use Opposition time on a subject that we wish to bring before the House before the spring recess.
In view of the disturbing evidence being submitted to the inquest on the late WPC Yvonne Fletcher, may I renew my request for a public inquiry specifically into the Government's response to the information reaching them before the tragic events at the former Libyan people's bureau? Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Prime Minister to make a full statement to the House on these aspects of the matter as soon as the inquest is completed?

Mr. Biffen: The Government's view about a public inquiry on matters relating to the death of WPC Fletcher has already been made clear. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the right hon. Gentleman's renewed request and to his request for a statement following the completion of the inquest.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about the timing of the Adjournment motion debate. I have as much a vested interest in that as anyone else has, and I am glad to know that I travel in such distinguished company.
As for an Opposition day within the time span mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, we should like to examine that through the usual channels.
I noted the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the plans for a debate on Hong Kong. I am sure that he is right in saying that there is widespread interest in the House on that topic, and I believe that it would be appropriate to arrange for the debate to be extended until midnight.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in our constituencies at the frequent failure of the Post Office to deliver the mails on time or even at all? Should not there be a statement by the Government and perhaps a debate on that important matter?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend's view, which is widely held in the House.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Ravenscraig is by no means a little local difficulty? The situation has grave implications for steel production and the whole country. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is important to find time for a debate on it? During the nine weeks of the miners' strike, the House has had no chance to debate the coal industry.

Mr. Biffen: I must take account of the fact that the programme of business which I have just announced makes it clear that there is no possibility of a debate on Ravenscraig in Government time next week. However, whether the subject will feature in a statement will be under constant review.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend consult the usual channels to see whether


there is some means by which the House could briefly but appropriately recognise the great achievements of D—day, 6 June 1944?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House find time, if not next week the following week, for a coal industry debate, in view of the fact that the strike has lasted for nine weeks? Some of us would like the opportunity to point out that if the Government can find £1,000 million to subsidise agriculture, at £20,000 per farmer, and provide a loan to the bankrupt Common Market—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

Mr. Skinner: If they can find the money to bail out the bankers because of the debts in foreign countries with two—tier interest rates, surely they can find the money to ensure that pits and the coal beneath the ground in Britain are used to the fullest possible extent.

Mr. Biffen: It is clear from the business announcement that I have made no provision for such a debate, but of course I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The Leader of the Opposition is interested in having an Opposition day between now and the recess. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to use his charm and advocacy on the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend arrange, before the House goes into recess and after the Treasury has been consulted and given its sanction, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement about compensation for those milk producers driven out of business and, in the case of tenants, left without a roof over their heads by the new quota arrangements?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of my hon. Friend's point, which I know will find a widespread echo in the House. It is quite likely that an affirmative resolution under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act will be required to implement the policy to which he referred. We may be able to have a debate arising on that.

Mr. Tony Benn: Reverting to the argument for a debate on the coal industry, will the Leader of the House take into account that today's estimates suggest that the cost to public funds of the dispute is now £1,350 million, that coal stocks have fallen to dangerous levels, and that there is serious hardship in areas where miners and their wives are fighting to maintain the pits? Could not the Government arrange a day's debate to tell us why they have decided to do nothing whatever to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the Government's handling of the dispute has been admirable. They have avoided the highly charged political comment that characterised that contribution from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). As to a debate, I can go no further than I went in response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend follows closely events in the EEC and he will know that we have agreed to an agricultural settlement that means that the Community will run out of funds this year

and is seeking a loan. When I asked my right hon. Friend before how that loan would be dealt with, he said that he had not had time to address the matter. Obviously he has addressed it since then. Can he tell me now or in a written reply how the House will deal with a request from the EEC for a loan?

Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury responded to my hon. Friend with all the measured judgment that one would expect from a Treasury Minister. I can add nothing now, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House be making arrangements for the Prime Minister either to substantiate or to withdraw the statement that she made on "The World this Weekend" about an unnamed Member of the House in regard to intelligence al the beginning of the Falklands war? If nothing happens, will he move a motion to suspend her for five days?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can helpfully acid to what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, nor can I helpfully comment on the hon. Gentleman's final question.

Mr. Roger Gale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Straw and Stubble Burning (Control and Licensing) Bill introduced by Lord Alport has completed all its stages in another place? As there are now two such Bills before the House, will my right hon . Friend find time for a Second Reading of that Bill?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot hold out very much hope for my hon. Friend, but, being charitable by disposition, I shall certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House say when he expects the order to be laid before the House for the repeal of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Richard Body: On behalf of several thousand constituents, may I thank my right hon. Friend for expediting the passage of that most admirable measure the Fosdyke Bridge Bill next week?

Mr. Biffen: It is a profound element in any Government's economic and social policy.

Mr. James Hamilton: As the Leader of the House is not receptive to the idea of holding a debate on the coal industry, will he ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement next week about the coal supplies that are reputed to be in power stations and all other coal supplies in the country?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind, when he is asked by Opposition Members to make time for a debate on the coal industry, that they are not seriously pursuing their requests because that would oblige the Leader of the Opposition to say whether he supported the miners' efforts to starve the steel workers into submission?

Mr. Biffen: I think that I should have a wise detachment in these matters, and I could not follow the rhetoric of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Has the Government held internal discussions on setting aside time for a full—scale debate on the recently published report of the New Ireland Forum?

Mr. Biffen: No. I said last week that the House would probably wish to return to the matter in due course, but there are no immediate plans for such a debate.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have been pleased to learn that concessions have been made by the Government in another place on measures being considered there, following pressure in this House for those concessions? Would it not be a good idea for Ministers to make concessions on amendments tabled in this House rather than wait until they reached the other place.

Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting proposition. It could be either prudent or revolutionary. I shall certainly bear it in mind.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Why, instead of spending three days next week extending police powers, does not the Leader of the House provide time to discuss the 1,300 arrests on trumped—up charges that have been made during the coal dispute, including one last week in Coventry of a miner visiting his cousin to pick up some leeks for the garden, who was arrested for obstructing a police officer when he insisted that that was the only reason why he was travelling through the police road block?
Why cannot we have time to debate the destruction of one fifth of manufacturing industry, which has more to do with the economy of the coalfield than the Prime Minister's bleating about miners' productivity?

Mr. Biffen: The reason why we are having two and a half days next week to ensure that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill takes a major step towards becoming law is that we believe it to be a significant piece of legislation relating to the protective role of the police, without which society cannot properly function. We are delighted that time should be spent to that end rather than on harassing and attacking the police.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend note that one subject frequently figuring among the top three in public opinion is law and order? Will he consider holding a full debate soon on the whole subject of law and order, not specifically related to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill but to matters concerning the public at large?

Mr. Biffen: We live in a less than perfect world. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss law and order, he is never likely to have so good an opportunity as he will on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Notwithstanding the comments of the Leader of the House on law and order, will he prevail on the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House on the relationship between law and order and respect for the police that is implied in the fact that constituents of mine, travelling yesterday from Fife to a peaceful demonstration in Glasgow, were apprehended several times by the

police? It is true that those travelling on the bus who contacted me were miners, but their wives and children, going on a peaceful demonstration, were apprehended. How in heaven's name can that help law and order or good relations with the police?

Mr. Biffen: I am in no position to comment on the events described by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall, of course, refer to my right hon. Friend his request for a statement upon them by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about the selection of Janice Smale as the test-tube mother and of the tremendous amount of money spent on the development of her quadruplets? May we have a debate on the National Health Service to consider that growing concern and the selection of prospective mothers?

Mr. Biffen: I must confess that I was not aware of the strength of the sentiment to which my hon. Friend refers. I suggest that, if he wishes to have the matter considered by the House during the coming week, he tries to secure a slot in the debate on the motion for the spring Adjournment.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the North—east electricity board is threatening to cut off the electricity from the homes of valiant miners battling to keep jobs to protect their families? Does he recall that last week I asked him whether we could debate the reason why £15 is being deducted from such people's social security payments when the Government know well that they are not receiving £15 and that, therefore, the electricity board is setting a target too high for the miners to pay? By not allowing a debate on that topic, the Government are in effect allowing young children in my constituency to be directly attacked.

Mr. Biffen: No arrangements have been made for that topic to be debated next week — certainly not in Government time — but the hon. Gentleman may wish through his own initiative to try to have it debated outside Government time.

Mr. John Carlisle: In view of the impending visit to this country of Mr. P. W. Botha, the South African Prime Minister, and of the brave initiative shown by our Prime Minister in inviting him, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on southern Africa — a subject of great interest to many hon. Members — which will at least give Conservative Members the opportunity of knowing whether the leaders of the Labour party and the Liberal party view with the same enthusiasm the visit of this international leader as they do their talks with leaders in Moscow?

Mr. Biffen: There is no prospect of a debate on southern Africa in Government time next week or, I suspect, immediately thereafter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will try again, on his own account, to have the matter raised.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why should Members of the House of Commons have to put up with what have now been three cover—ups—one on the Belgrano, the second on the issue of Oman and the third on what happened over the Libyan embassy siege? In the


light of what was said at the inquest yesterday, is there not a duty on the Government to carry out the fullest possible inquiries, since it was said at that inquest that the police were informed in advance that violence was to be used? Surely Parliament must now demand and get an investigation from the Government.

Mr. Biffen: I do not for one moment accept the description that the hon. Gentleman gives to the topics to which he referred, but I note his discontent on them which I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Leader of the House noticed that early day motion 714 is gathering increasing strength from both sides of the Chamber? [That this House recognises that the refusal to admit Mrs Jill Allen, M.B.E., with her guide dog Brandy to the Strangers' Gallery on Friday 27th April 1984 represented a disgraceful affront to all blind people; acknowledges that it is seen as an act of discrimination against blind people whose dogs can become ill if kept apart from their owners for even a short period of time; believes that the time has come to emulate the other place and provide access for blind persons with guide dogs; believes further that it cannot be beyond the wit of the Services Committee, having taken evidence from organisations of the disabled, to recommend suitable arrangements to ensure that discrimination against any disabled persons seeking to exercise their democratic right to hear their public representatives in debate is eradicated; and calls for a thorough review of the whole situation.]
Does he not regard it as repugnant that blind persons with guide dogs are still excluded from the Strangers' Gallery? Does he not realise that this is against the reputation of the House of Commons and in contrast to what happens in the other place? What action will he take to ensure that the House of Commons is dragged, albeit screaming, into the 20th century?

Mr. Biffen: The matter is currently under consideration by a Sub—committee of the Services Committee, and in due course the Services Committee will consider it.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions)

Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9 May]

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 2

SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF, COUNCILLORS

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 21, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 10 and add
`in appointing Councillors to serve on the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils pursuant to section 2(4)(a) the constituent councils shall appoint in accordance with the following procedure—

(a) the principal minority party having the required percentage of seats on that council as set out below shall nominate a candidate of its choice.
(b) the relevant percentages for the purpose of paragraph(a) above shall be as follows:—

For constituent councils with two councillors if the minority parties together have at least 40 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate a candidate for one of the two seats;
For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 33 per cent. of the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for one of the three seats;
For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the three seats;
For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 25 per cent. of the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for the four or more seats;
For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, the two largest parties shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the four seats.'.


No. 112, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 10 and add
'in appointing Councillors to serve on the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils pursuant to section 2(4)(a) the constituent councils shall appoint in accordance with the following procedure—

(a) the principal minority party having the required percentage of seats on that council as set out below shall nominate a candidate of its choice.
(b) the relevant percentages for the purpose of paragraph (a) above shall be as follows:—

For constituent councils with two councillors if the minority parties together have at least 40 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate a candidate for one of the two seats;
For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 33 per cent. of


the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for one of the three seats;
For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the three seats;
For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 25 per cent. of the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for the four or more seats;
For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, the two largest parties shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the four seats;
For constituent councils where the party composition of council seats cannot be related to the above formula the council shall appoint councillors by simple majority voting.'.
No. 22, in page 3, line 6, leave out from first 'in' to end of line 10 and add
'in Greater London or (as the case may be) the relevant metropolitan county is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council or of that metropolitan county council'.
No. 74, in page 3, line 10, at end add—
'(5A) Any question which may arise under subsection (5) above as to whether in any case the balance of parties has been reflected shall be determined by the Secretary of State'.
No. 23, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert
'provided that this power may be exercised only if and so far as may be necessary for the purpose of ensuring that the persons who are for the time being members of the relevant metropolitan county council and for whose appointment the constituent council is responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that metropolitan county'.
No. 27, in clause 5, page 5, line 5, at end insert
'(2A) A constituent council in making or terminating appointments under this Part of this Act shall appoint the nominees of minority parties as provided for in section 2 of this Act.'.

Dr. Cunningham: I think that it is true to say that no part of the Bill has caused more offence or greater reaction than clause 2(5) which, if implemented, will change the political control of the Greater London council and, had it not been for the significant gains by the Labour party in last week's local elections in other metropolitan county areas, may well have brought into question Labour control in one or two of the metropolitan counties as well.
This group of amendments seeks to prevent that from happening, because Opposition Members do not accept that it should be possible or that it should be a consequence of an Act of Parliament that democratically elected political control of an authority should be changed. That is our fundamental dispute with the Government over this matter, and I believe that this issue is widely recognised, not only in Parliament but outside the House, as one on which the Government have little, if any, real support.
The truth is that it is an unprecedented step to take by any Government of any political persuasion and has clearly caused not only offence but deep concern among active politicians in all political parties, not least—to their credit—among many members of the Secretary of State's own party inside and outside the House, as I shall demonstrate. Amendment No. 20 seeks to delete subsection (5) and allay that concern.
Not content with abolishing the elections in 1985 and substituting nominated borough councillors for directly

elected county councillors, the Bill seeks to introduce a measure to ensure the balance of parties. But it does not ensure the balance of parties—quite the reverse. The provision will change the balance of parties in the GLC and it is only because of Labour gains in last week's elections that it will be prevented from changing the balance of parties elsewhere. Futhermore, the longstanding outcome of elections when the candidates with the most votes are declared the winners and the party with the majority of successful candidates takes control is being changed by the Bill.
The Government have laid themselves wide open to accusations of gerrymandering the situation in the capital city. It is a clear case of gerrymandering—perhaps one of the most odious of all political accusations. They are fiddling the outcome of elections.
We do not have the Official Report and I do not want to misquote or to misrepresent what the Secretary of State had to say on this issue in our debates in the early hours of the morning, but I believe that he said that this was an accident. He said that it was an unfortunate outcome of the Bill. [Interruption.] I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but that was the impression he created. If he wants to correct me, I shall happily give way, but I believe that I am right in saying that he said that it was an accident of the Bill.
Does that make it any more acceptable? Does it mean that in a democracy we can legislate and take no notice of the consequences of accidents of provisions in legislation? Is the Secretary of State asking the House to accept that? If he is, I must tell him that we fundamentally reject it, and I am in no doubt that if the Secretary of State were standing where I am standing he would reject it, too.
It is difficult to conceive that an experienced and senior Cabinet Minister, as the right hon. Gentleman is, and a man who has held long and honourable public office, not only in the House but elsewhere, too, can convince himself that Parliament and the local authority members involved—my colleagues and even his own colleagues in the GLC—will accept that, because he has thought that this is an unfortunate accident, that makes it acceptable. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot believe that people will accept that.
What is worse in a way is that when the right hon. Gentleman's proposals went to the Prime Minister, as we now know because of leaked documents, she herself, at least in the beginning, said, "I have grave reservations about it—aren't we changing political control? We had better have another look at it." But suddenly, for some reason, the right hon. Lady's opposition and reservations evaporated and the proposal was allowed to proceed. It is an appalling stain on the record of the right hon. Gentleman who, as I have said, has hitherto had an honourable one in holding public office, that he should come to the House knowing of this consequence, and say, "This accident is just part of the consequences and it has to be accepted."
4 pm
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the outset, to think again about this consequence of the Bill, and, more importantly, if it is allowed to proceed, about the consequences of the provision. It is anathema to the Opposition that this change should be made in this way. If they cannot accept these amendments as they stand, I do not mind if the Government say that they will look at


the provision again. That would be good enough for me in the circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say, even at this stage, that he is prepared to look at the matter again. He must know, not only of the deep disquiet, distaste and offence with which this part of his Bill has been received here, but how concerned his right hon. and hon. Friends and his colleagues in the Conservative party, are about the consequences of this course of action.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was the first of many to make that point on Second Reading. He said:
Worst of all—and my right hon. Friend did not seem to realise this—is the imposition by parliamentary diktat of a change of responsible party in London government. There cannot be any justification for that. It immediately lays the Conservative party open to the charge of the greatest gerrymandering in the last 150 years of British history. That is what we, as a party, are being exposed to."— [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 425.]
That is a serious statement. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman make a charge of gerrymandering; he went further. He said that that it was "the greatest gerrymandering" that he, and no doubt his researchers, could unearth in 150 years.
I have said this many times before about aspects of the Government's legislation: if the Labour party were taking such actions and such powers, we would be described as eastern European, as totalitarian. We would be abused in the media as well as in the House. Our good faith would be called into question, as it has already, all too often, in the past. The apparent complacency on the Treasury Bench about the deep and far-reaching implications of what is to take place is quite staggering.
The people of London have every right to be doubly aggrieved and offended—first, because their votes in elections next year are being taken away. They are being prevented from electing the council of their choice through the ballot box. Secondly, they are being told that by an Act of Parliament the council that they have elected, and the political control that they have chosen democratically, is to be changed. There can be no greater offence to a voter in a democracy than to have not one such insult, but two, thrown in his face in the same measure at the same time by the same Government.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends that the Opposition will not let the voters of this country or the Conservative party forget, overlook or obscure what is being proposed in this part of the Bill because it is monstrous in its intentions and repugnant to us. I can imagine how I or my hon. Friends would be received if we went to Sussex or Surrey and announced that we intended to legislate in the House of Commons —I see the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pricks up his ears — and told them, "Never mind that you have consistently elected a Conservative county council, we shall legislate to change all that and there will be Socialist administration in Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire or Kent." There would be an outcry, and rightly so. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends are nodding their heads. It would be a disgrace if any Government were to do that, but the present Government intend to do exactly that to the capital city of this country and to the electors of London.
Yesterday, a Conservative councillor from the City of Westminster wrote to The Guardian on this issue. That council is well known for its desire to be rid of the GLC

and, in particular, to be rid of Mr. Livingstone. I deplore the way in which many of these arguments have become personalised and people have been made excuses for proposals rather than policies. However, Councillor Stephen Govier wrote:
Many have an almost paranoid desire to be rid of Ken Livingstone by any possible means. Others—at least 18 MPs among them—
he is talking about the Conservative party—
hold firm to a fundamental belief in democracy and the constitution.
He went on:
Few Bills threaten to debase the constitution, but this most surely does.
He then said:
The Prime Minister may well be hell bent on rolling back the frontiers of society, but at the same time her Government is acting like a bull in society's china shop of checks and balances.
That is not a letter from some renegade in the Conservative party. He goes on to say that he supports the economic policies of the Government but denounces that particular aspect of the Bill. It is to his credit that he does so. Amendments associated with amendment No. 20 seek to prevent this from happening and express our view of what should happen.
I reiterate that our principal view is that next year's elections should take place. There is no good reason why they should not. Expense has been advanced as an excuse, but even if the major Bill to follow this tawdry little measure were carried by the House it would be far more sensible and acceptable if the remaining time available to the GLC were presided over by councillors who had been democratically elected. There can be no better solution than that in a democratic society. If that is not to be the case, every democrat should accept that any interim administration should be on the basis of the outcome of the latest expression of will by the electors. I defy anyone, in the House or outside it, to contest those two propositions.
There are other amendments in this group, some of which are in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he is concerned about the matter. However, I am not sure that his amendments would resolve the dilemma that I am posing, and about which I am asking the Secretary of State to think again.
What is clear is that the Bill as it stands offers no safeguards for the representation of minority parties. Clause 2 admits of more than one fair answer in many respects, as is shown by the tables published in the appendices. But, according to the assumptions in those tables, a possible outcome of the change would be 48 Conservative seats on the interim body, 29 Labour seats and two alliance seats. That is a graphic measure of the turnaround that would result from the implementation of this part of the Bill—a Labour majority, albeit small; turned at a stroke into a Conservative majority of 19. without a single vote being cast. That is astonishing.
I reiterate that it is extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this is somehow an accident. It is difficult to envisage the scene. A civil servant comes to the Secretary of State and says, "Here are the draft proposals, Minister. By the way, we think that we should draw your attention to the consequences. One of those consequences—we think that you ought to know this, Minister, because it is important—is a change in the political control of the capital of this country."
Did the Secretary of State really respond, "Oh, do not bother about that; it is an accident"? Does he expect us to believe that? Did the civil servant then say, "But perhaps, Secretary of State, we ought to write to the Prime Minister about it"? What really went on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when those considerations were first put before him? Did he not envisage the reaction to this "accident" in Parliament and in the country?
The Prime Minister did not call it an accident when General Jaruzelski started taking action against Solidarity in Poland. The Parliamentary Under—secretary mutters and shakes his head. I do not want to go into every dot, comma and quotation of what was said by the right hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends, but they said some very strong things about freedom, democracy, choice and rights. Have they forgotten all that, or do those arguments apply only in other countries? Do they no longer apply to the people of London?

Mr. David Winnick: Of course not.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. Apparently, they do not. By an accident—a mere stroke or slip of the pen in a little paving Bill—all those things are to be changed. What a footnote to the right hon. Gentleman's political history! Does he really want it set beside the rest of his record? I hesitate to believe he does.

Mr. Winnick: I do not want to cause you to accuse us of digressing, Mr. Walker, but is it not interesting to note that at the very moment when we are debating a measure to abolish elections for London, with all that that entails, the Prime Minister has invited the head of the most vile and hated of regimes to this country?

Dr. Cunningham: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I had better not allow myself to be deflected. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I do not wish to speak for much longer.
Let me continue with my remarks about the change, based on the figures in the tables in the appendices to the Bill. It can easily be shown that a further five seat—in addition to the ones that I have already cited—could end up being divided between the Conservatives, the alliance and the Labour party. But even with those remaining uncertainties, the table represents only one possible method of calculating the outcome. On an assumption of the worst outcome for the Labour party in each borough the figures could end up as 56 for the Conservative party, 26 for Labour and two for the alliance. That would be a Conservative majority of 30 over the Labour party compared with the status quo following the last elections.
I understand that the view of the Secretary of State is that if disputes arise they can be settled by the courts. Would not an appeal to the Secretary of State be the most appropriate way in which to resolve a dilemma? Should not the Secretary of State make the final decision? Do the Government really want disputes about political control to be dragged interminably through the courts? I cannot believe that that would be an acceptable or sensible way in which to proceed.
As I have said already, the best course would be to ensure that such disputes did not arise in the first place.

The Government should say, "This is an error, and we intend to correct it because we want no part in the fiddling of the democratic process. We want to maintain our record, hitherto a good one, of accepting the will of those who vote in elections."
That would be the most honourable course for Ministers to take this afternoon because, whatever else happens, if the Bill is enacted, they will have a tag attached to them throughout their political careers as the people who perpetrated what is, in the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sicup and others, the worst and most offensive political gerrymander in this country's history of democratic elections.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish to address my remarks to amendment No. 112, which stands in my name. This debate is one of the most important so far in the proceedings on the Bill. I listened carefully to the case that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made for amendment No. 20, which would remove from the Bill the entire mechanism whereby the constituent councils could make or terminate the appointments the nominated authority. If the amendment were carried, it would wreck the Bill as it stands. That is a perfectly reasonable aim for the Opposition and the amendment has been moved in a perfectly reasonable manner.
The amendment to which I wish to speak this afternoon deals with circumstances that would arise if amendment No. 20 is unsuccessful and subsection (5) is retained in the Bill. I am concerned about the political composition of the nominated authority that will come into being when the Bill is enacted. There was much criticism from both sides of the Committee on this issue during the long hours when we debated the Bill. The Opposition pointed out, quite fairly, that there would be a change of political control because the nominated councillors would, in the case of Greater London, reflect the existing balance of the London borough councils. I hope that I will be forgiven if I concentrate some of my initial remarks on Greater London, with which I am particularly familiar. Doubtless similar considerations apply in a number of the metropolitan county councils.
Much of the argument and counter-argument about the need for elections next May depends on the prospects of one political party or another winning a majority at those elections. The existing GLC was elected in 1981. The London borough councils were elected two years ago: they are halfway through their present term. If we are to have a nominated authority, it would be preferable for the nominated authority at least to reflect the most recent local government elections in the Greater London area—the London borough council elections in 1981. The only alternative to that would be to have a nominated authority that reflected the general election results of 1983.I can well understand that Opposition Members may not find that a particularly attractive proposition.
I have therefore confined my amendment to attempting to reflect the composition of the constituent councils as they were elected by the people for local government purposes two years ago. It is to that aspect of the matter that I wish to direct the main thrust of my remarks.
Early this morning I attempted to persuade the Front Bench to accept my amendment No. 18 which would have enabled the present GLC councillors or the metropolitan county councillors to qualify to serve on the new


nominated authority. I believe that that is extremely important because those councillors have a great deal of experience. A sprinkling of them, together with councillors from the constituent authorities, would have made for a much better nominated authority—if we are to have one—than an authority composed entirely of London borough councillors, when at present only eight sitting members have any experience of serving on the GLC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in rejecting my amendment said that the introduction of existing GLC councillors into the new nominated assembly would not provide the essential link with the lower tier authority. That is a totally unsatisfactory reply. The existing GLC councillors and doubtless metropolitan county councillors too, together with Members of Parliament, London borough councillors and councillors for authorities outside London, have the closest possible relationship. Normally we work as a team. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contention that if we had introduced them it would have broken the link with the lower tier authority.
I turn now to the detail of my amendment. It is designed to do something that I regard as one of Parliament's primary duties, to protect the interests of minorities. It sets out a formula whereby each constituent authority would nominate councillors to serve on the GLC in relation to the political balance prevailing on each of the constituent authorities. The hon. Member for Copeland suggested that that would lead to a Conservative majority of about 12 or 16. I do not disagree with his figures.
However, if there is to be a nominated authority and there is a change of political control, it would be far better if the new nominated Greater London council, and other authorities too, reflected the existing balance of the borough councils, even if that resulted in a change of political control, because at least that would ensure that the parties as they are composed on the constituent councils now would have their strength reflected.
It would also mean that the minorities— I am referring to all the major political parties, certainly the Conservative party, Labour party and Liberal/SDP alliance—would be represented on the new nominated authority. For an authority such as the London borough of Lambeth, about which we have heard a certain amount in the House in recent years, where the existing party strengths are Conservative 27, Labour 34 and SDP/Liberal alliance three, the application of my formula would mean that two Labour nominated councillor, and one Conservative nominated councillor would be representing the London borough of Lambeth on the new, nominated GLC.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: While my hon. Friend is referring to the London borough of Lambeth, can he tell me how he would see it if Labour councillors from the London borough of Lambeth and some other Labour-controlled councils decided that they would not serve on the interim body? The Conservatives would be left with a nominated body in which only they were involved.

Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I can best reply by drawing his attention to my subsequent amendment No. 27 which states:
A constituent council in making or terminating appointments under this Part of this Act shall appoint the nominees of minority parties as provided for in section 2 of this Act.
My hon. Friend asked what would happen if the minority parties refused to nominate. That would be entirely a matter for them. However, the minority parties would have had the opportunity provided by statute, if they so wished, to nominate a councillor from the authorities of their choice. If they chose not to take that opportunity, I do not believe that that would differ from what happens when a political party chooses not to contest one of the council seats in a local authority area. Moreover, that happens frequently in many wards throughout the country because for one reason or another parties simply do not think it is worth their while to contest a seat.
So, if I may return to my formula, for Lambeth there would be two Labour councillors and one Conservative. In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, for example, where I understand there are 30 Labour councillors, 19 SDP/Liberal alliance councillors and one other, use of my formula would result in there being one Liberal/SDP alliance councillor and one Labour councillor. Of course, as often happens, there is a joker in the pack, which on this occasion is the London borough of Waltham Forest, where the composition of the council is Conservative 25. Labour 25 and Liberal/SDP alliance one.
Therefore, in amendment No. 112, I have included in the final paragraph the words:
For constituent councils where the party composition of council seats cannot be related to the above formula the council shall appoint councillors by simple majority voting.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman go through the figures for Waltham Forest again?

Mr. Shersby: Certainly. I understand that the party strengths on the London borough of Waltham Forest are Conservative 25, Labour 25 and Liberal/SDP alliance one. I hope that those figures are correct. Local government council seats change hands in by—elections. But that is my understanding.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that the strength of the Liberal—sDP alliance in Waltham Forest is more than one. I think it is six.

Mr. Shersby: Even if the alliance had won a few seats there would still be no difficulty. If my right hon. Friend will refer to my formula, he will see that there is a minimum percentage whereby it is necessary for the minority parties together to have
at least 33 per cent. of the council seats
to have the statutory right to nominate a councillor.
The purpose of my amernndment is to deal with the situation that will arise if amendment No. 20, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Copeland is unsuccessful. In my view, it would be infinitely preferable to have a nominated Greater. London council, nominated in accordance with a formula that would protect the interests of minorities. All of us—as representatives of our different political parties—are in the minority in various authorities. It would do much to take the curse off the proposed new nominated authority and to meet some of the criticism that we have heard in Committee about the change of political control that would result.
I very much hope that my  right hon. and hon. Friends who are present today, particularly my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues, who I know have studied this amendment with great care, will be prepared to give it the most positive consideration, and be prepared, if necessary, to introduce an amendment in another place. Unless we can protect the rights of minorities and ensure that the new nominated authority at least reflects the political balance on the borough councils, as at the last date when local councillors were elected, that authority will be the subject of continuing criticisms.
I hope, too, that the Opposition will look carefully at my amendment, if their amendment No. 20 is unsuccessful, because from their point of view, and that of the many responsible members of Opposition parties who serve both in this House and in local government, it is an extremely important amendment. It would enable all the major political parties to play a proper and responsible part in the orderly transfer of responsibilities from the GLC and the metropolitan counties to the lower—tier authorities.
I cannot believe that responsible members of the Labour party or of the Liberal/SDP alliance would wish, despite their understandable objection to the proposals in this paving Bill, to opt out entirely. After all, they, too, have a political future in local government. They have an important interest in the running of borough councils in Greater London and in parts of the country outside London, and I do not imagine that they would wish to be excluded from the transfer discussions that will take place during the coming 11 months, however great their disappointment may be about my right hon. Friend's proposals in the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that the formula that I have proposed will attract support from all parts of the Committee. That would at least show that Parliament is concerned to uphold its ancient duty of protecting minorities.

Mr. Winnick: With respect to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I do not see how his amendment would improve the situation— certainly not from the point of view of democracy. On reflection, he will understand, I think, that we are not likely to support his amendment, whether or not our amendment is successful.
Last night, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made what I think we would all agree was a very powerful speech. We listened to it with much attention. He prefaced his remarks, however, by accusing the Opposition of not doing their job. Perhaps understandably, as the bulk of his remarks was critical of the Government, he felt it necessary to start by criticising the Opposition.
It would have been better if more of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends who are not in the Government had been persuaded by the powerful argument which he advocated last night and on Second Reading. It is rather unfortunate that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends were not persuaded on an issue of such importance and which has such repercussions for democracy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to be convinced of the democratic repercussions, as he made all these points himself on Second Reading and again last night. It would have been good if his right hon. and hon. Friends had been persuaded by him and voted as he did.
The criticism should not be directed at the Opposition. We are rightly fighting against the Bill. The criticism should be directed to those Conservative Members who have yet to be persuaded of the importance of these matters and the need to support the Opposition's amendments.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the Conservatives. Surely he, in turn, will agree that it is distinctly disappointing from the Opposition's point of view that so very few Members of the Liberal/SDP alliance voted.

Mr. Winnick: The importance is in waging an opposition by Labour Members. I am not impressed by the argument sometimes used in connection with televising the House that attendance is thin. It is votes that count, not attendance. As one of those who had doubts about the setting up of Select Committees, I am not surprised at the thin attendance as Select Committees and many other committees preoccupy the attention of many hon. Members when they could be in the Chamber.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Did the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that the Leader of the Opposition did not support the amendments tabled by his party? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where was the Prime Minister?"]

Mr. Winnick: Apart from the fact that the Prime Minister was not present, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition supported the amendments completely. I am sure that even a new hon. Member, such as the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), is aware that the Leader of the Opposition has many commitments and no one in his right mind would say that it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition always to be present.

Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I saw the Prime Minister voting in that Division.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. We are considering today's amendments and not yesterday's.

Mr. Winnick: Some cynics have tended to argue that, whatever malpractices might be carried out, it would not matter in the end because the general public are not concerned with political battles. It is said that they could not care less. They are indifferent. Political battles may preoccupy hon. Members. There may be heated discussions and debates in the House, and we vote accordingly, but the general public shows little interest.
I would not be surprised if the Government had worked on that cynical assumption. But they have come unstuck. Opinion polls have shown that the Bill is not popular. People in Greater London and other metropolitan areas want elected authorities. I think that people suspect what the Government are up to.
At the last election, the Labour party was accused of wanting to undermine democracy. The familiar accusation was that we were intent on setting up a kind of eastern European state. The Government, having been re—elected and having introduced other measures of an antidemocratic nature, are now intent upon abolishing the metropolitan authorities that have a Labour majority. However, as Opposition Members have pointed out, no legislation has been introduced to deal with shire counties. The reason is simple enough. Most shire county councils have an inbuilt Tory majority. Therefore, all the arguments directed against the GLC and the metropolitan


county councils could well be directed against the shire counties; however, for the reasons I stated, no measures are being introduced to abolish them.
If the measure goes through, it will abolish the elections due next year. If the Government believed that next year's elections would result in a Conservative majority on the GLC and the other six authorities, can anyone doubt—how many Conservative Members present today would doubt—that they would have allowed the elections to go ahead? Of course they would. But the Government do not believe that. They know full well that if the 1985 elections took place the Labour party would probably do even better than it did in the previous elections for the GLC and the metropolitan authorities.

Mr. Harry Cowans: The Government are frightened of the ballot box.

Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) said, the Government are frightened of the ballot box—as are dictatorships.
We are discussing changing the political balance of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said—it is the reason for the amendment—the abolition of the elections and the setting up of nominated bodies will in some instances change the political balance. Therefore, instead of a democratically elected Labour majority, there will be a different majority—a non elected one. If that is not an eastern European practice, I should like to know what is.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to comment on the change of political balance. In many of the counties—especially in west Yorkshire — it is known that changing the political balance also changes the attitude to services and how they are administered in the counties. Will my hon. Friend agree that there is more to the measure than merely changing the political balance? Is it a Tory Government move to change how services will be administered in those areas until the changeover? Quangos will come in and perhaps continue to reduce the services that have been built up over the years by Labour administrations.? Will my hon. Friend take that on board?

Mr. Winnick: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly a change in political balance would be significant, as he said. Plainly the Government would hope that the new nominated bodies—in so far as there is a change in the political majority—will pursue policies different from those pursued by elected authorities. No one can doubt that.
Suppose that a Labour Government carried out such a measure and used our majority against Conservative—controlled authorities to abolish elections, and, say, set up nominated bodies in Surrey, Sussex and Kent. There would be denunciations by those very right hon. and hon. Members who support this measure. No doubt the Secretary of State would strenuously oppose the measure, saying that it was the road to dictatorship, and so on. Not only would Conservative Members denounce the measure—the honourable exceptions from all this are those who oppose what their Government are now doing—but the press would be screaming. I can just imagine the headlines of those newspapers that are so silent now— the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun—and that show such

indifference to what is happening to democracy. They would have banner headlines—not once, but day after day—saying that the proposal was the Socialist road to dictatorship, serfdom, and so on. They would ask what would happen to parliamentary elections. That would be the attitude of the Tory press if a Labour Government carried out such measures.
4.45 pm
I do not wish to praise the Secretary of State and perhaps cause him damage. However, although we do not doubt that he is a wholly committed Conservative, in our eyes the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat different from some of his colleagues—for example, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As I said, I hope that my words will not cause the Secretary of State difficulties from his colleagues. However, we expect somewhat different from him than we do from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We expect him to understand and appreciate our arguments about this important matter. I cannot help but conclude that in many respects the right hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be almost an errand boy for the Prime Minister.
I see the Bill as part of the political spite against the GLC.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I shall not be able to reply to the debate because, as I explained to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I have an important engagement outside the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State will reply. However, I cannot let the hon. Gentleman's suggestion pass. As the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was at pains to impress on the House yesterday, I was the one who argued, for perfectly good democratic reasons, that nominating members from elected councils was better than having members live on beyond their time by parliamentary fiat. That was my argument. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thought the idea novel and asked whether we should look at it again. In the end, when confronted with all the arguments, the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends were convinced, after our debate last night, that that was the right answer. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has stood completely on their head my conclusions and those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said in effect that the whole idea of the Bill originated from the Prime Minister, out of spite and loathing for these Labour—controlled authorities. Instead of having faith and confidence in the ballot box on the basis that if some people do not like what is being done they should try to change it by democratic means, she decided to use her majority in the House of Commons to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan authorities. I asked earlier why the shire counties were not being similarly dealt with. The explanation is the one I gave earlier.
I have said that the right hon. Gentleman acts almost as an errand boy for the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), states in his recently published book—an interesting book in some respects because it deals with his time as a member of this Government—that the Prime


Minister expects Ministers to be her agents. If the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to do her bidding and argued against this Bill, I wonder how long he would last in the Government. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford did not last long, nor did the former Foreign Secretary. The same applies, unfortunately from his point of view, to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).

The Chairman: Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is going wide of the amendments. I hope that he will return to them.

Mr. Winnick: I shall return to them entirely, Mr. Walker.
I say only that one would have expected the right hon. Gentleman, instead of being a party to what is now happening and allowing democracy to be replaced by nominated bodies—and in some cases clearly allowing a situation to develop in which the authorities have a nominated majority, which is quite different from an elected majority—to realise what was involved, as did the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and certain of his right hon. and hon. Friends, and to resign from the Government if necessary. May I also say to him. although perhaps he does not mind one way or the other, that he would have had far more credibility in the House as a whole by doing that than by allowing himself to be part of this miserable measure that is aimed at the democratic process itself. I hope that even at this late stage the right hon. Gentleman will realise the injury that he is doing to democracy.

Mr. Francis Pym: This Bill is of such a character that in my view it is incapable of being made acceptable by means of amendment. On the other hand, it has a few especially unacceptable features that I think it right to tackle by way of amendment. That is why my name is associated with amendment No. 20.
I object to the replacement of an elected body by a nominated body in any case, and even more strongly to the imposed change in political complexion that will take place after the establishment of the proposed incoming body that will be nominated to execute the responsibilities of the Greater London council. That is not fair or reasonable, and I do not believe that anyone believes that it is. It does not accord with the British sense of justice.
I can just about understand my right hon. Friend's thinking on the issue. He believes that an appointed body is acceptable, and the fact that it will have a different political complexion is a coincidence—an accident—and not particularly important. What is more, he probably thinks that it is administratively convenient and a very neat way of preparing the ground for the larger reform which he want to undertake next year. I do not perceive matters in that way and nor do many others. We see it as an unwarranted interference with the democratic process. I do not believe that there is any precedent for the procedure—at any rate, I have not been able to find one. It is not only dangerous to manipulate the democratic process in this way, but unacceptable. I believe that my right hon. Friend will find that it also has an unacceptable political price attached to it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I respect greatly the reputation, knowledge and views on this

subject of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym). But is not the position slightly different from the historical examples mentioned by hon. Gentlemen? Effectively, for an 11-month period there will be a rump authority, which will not be looking to the future or able to embark on certain political directions and take political decisions. In other words, it will not be a political authority but one which, for 11 months, will be taken to pieces bit by bit and developed into new authorities—the district authorities that already exist. Therefore, do not the Government have a case for giving the power over that period to those who will take on the responsibility and who have a vested interest in the future and in success, rather than to those who happen to be in place at the time?

Mr. Pym: I disagree with my hon. Friend, but he is right to this extent: there are differences about the proposed reform. However, he must remember that we do not yet know the details of that, nor has the House had any chance to debate it. In any case, my hon. Friend's argument does not invalidate the principle which I am adumbrating—that it is a great mistake to upset the democratic process. The simple solution, which I argued yesterday—I know that it was unsuccessful in the Lobby—is to extend the period of office of the properly and legitimately elected councillors for a further 11 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) prefers the political complexion of the boroughs, on the ground that their elections were more recent than the GLC's. He feels that the borough elections of 1982 are somehow more relevant to the business of the GLC than its elections in 1981 are. But I do not believe that it would be wise to follow that principle or to pursue that line of thought.

Mr. Shersby: The point that I was trying to make is this. If amendment No. 20 is not carried and we are faced with a nominated authority—however disagreeable that may be to my right hon. Friend and others—surely it would be better to have an authority which at least reflects the political balance of the local authorities as determined at the most recent date.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for that; I was going on to say that my hon. Friend's amendment is clearly very constructive, assuming that we shall not manage to knock out clause 2(5). It is certainly worthy of the Secretary of State's consideration, which I hope will be given. However, it does not dispose of my objection to the fact that we shall still be faced with an imposed change of political control.
There is also an unfortunate political result. Not long ago, Mr. Livingstone was rather an asset to my party; there are other characters in our country who are also assets to my party. But now, through the mishandling of the main reform of local government that my right hon. Friend has in mind, the Government have been clever enough to turn Mr. Livingsone into something much more like a genuine menace to them. He used to be only an apparent menace. He has now been handed an ace or two, which he certainly does not deserve and which he will certainly play.
We have put ourselves in a very vulnerable position that is of the Government's own making. Amendment No. 20 will not solve that, but it would help if subsection (5) were withdrawn and another method devised. It all points to what I said before. There has been too much haste in trying


to rush ahead with this reform, and too little preparation. I urge the Government to think again about their interim measures. We have not yet reached the main proposals. The interim measures have received considerable criticism from the Conservative Benches, as well as from the Opposition Benches. The Government should listen to some of the voices on both sides of the Committee and consider that they might conceivably be wrong. They should then come back with a better method of proceeding.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I first raise a point of order, Mr. Walker. I respect your discretion in making the selection, but you did not select amendment No. 54 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It proposed that the formula for deciding the composition of the interim authority should be based on the votes cast in the borough and district council elections held before the interim authority comes into existence. Does that fall within the Bill's long title?

The Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, but it is not a point of order. The Chair is not required to give any reasons why an amendment has or has not been selected. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that very careful consideration was given to every amendment on the Amendment Paper beore the selection was made.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Walker. I understand and respect your reasons for making the selection. However, the debate is about the way in which we seek to resolve the enormous muddle that the Government's proposals have caused. The Government have decided that next year there shall be no Greater London council or metropolitan county council election, that those councils will continue for a year, and that they must have a composition made up elsewhere. The amendments suggest various formulae for making up those councils during that year.
The Liberal party find the whole idea that the Government seek to implement appalling and disgraceful. I speak on behalf of pople who at one time or another will find themselves in a political minority against the tyranny that what we call our constitution gives to the party that wins the most seats in this place. Last June the Conservative party won about 42 per cent. of the vote in the general election.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can anticipate the road that the hon. Gentleman will take and try to divert him on to a different one. The Bill is about local government and not about Westminster.

Mr. Hughes: I shall move very quickly from this place to the local authorities. I think that you will accept, Mr. Walker, that the point is valid. The Government, like any Government elected by a minority of voters, have taken it upon themselves to decide for the local areas of our country. In so doing they claim the constitutional right that the House apparently gives them, which is that Parliament is sovereign. I have been in the House for a year and three months. I believe that we have almost no constitution and the people in the Strangers' Gallery are conned if they think that we have an unwritten constitution.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I must draw the hon. Member's attention to our procedures, which do not recognise those people to whom he seeks to refer.

Mr. Hughes: If that is the case, I am even more amazed. The public ought to know that few parts of our constitution can survive the bulldozer of tyrannical government. All that survive are the facts that the monarch is the head of state and that Parliament is sovereign.
5 pm
It is appalling that the Government—whichever party is in the majority, and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym) and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), have been honourable enough to recognise this—can decide that this place can determine a political change in the control of the largest local authority in Europe, the Greater London council, that converts it without an election from an elected council, producing a Labour majority under a system that we find unacceptable but for the time being have to accept, into a new council with a large Conservative majority. I would say that that was appalling, no matter which party was in power, and I hope that Back Bench Members of the major parties would say so, too.
The amendments seek to get round the problem posed by the Government seeking to make out of borough councils a composition for the Greater London council and out of the district councils in the six metropolitan counties a composition for the metropolitan county councils that will exist next year without elections. They are seeking to contrive a formula for doing so.
The amendments present several possible ways of doing that. Amendment No. 20 would delete subsection (5), which would mean that there would be no obligation on the constituent councils of London boroughs and of districts outside London to make their appointees for a year to their county authorities reflect any political balance. I am prepared to go down that road if it means that the Government will have to start again and come up with an acceptable proposal.
Amendment No. 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), would provide for a reflection—contrived, as he will accept—of the composition of those councils as at the time that they were last elected. In each case, that would be an unsatisfactory outcome. In the last borough council elections in London, in 1982, four authorities found themselves with no party in overall control—Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth and Waltham Forest. At last week's district council elections in the metropolitan counties even more authorities were left without one—party control: Bradford, Rochdale, Stockport, Walsall and Calderdale. There may be others.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: But not Liverpool.

Mr. Hughes: No, not Liverpool, even though in Liverpool the Labour vote went down and the Liberal vote went up.

Mr. Wareing: We have experienced Liberal rule in Liverpool. That is why.

Mr. Hughes: Although that is a distraction, Mr. Walker, the hon. Gentleman knows well that the only reason why there was Liberal government in Liverpool was that the Labour party refused, though it was the largest party, to take office.

Mr. Wareing: The Liberals allied with the Tories.

Mr. Hughes: There was no alliance with the Tories. I shall not be drawn further down that road, because both the larger parties often argue that it is the third party that keeps the other in office, whereas often they keep each other in office because they prefer the two-party Box and Cox of this place, to the detriment of what you, Mr. Walker, tell me that I cannot describe as the people up there.
We sincerely hope that the Government will accept the fundamental constitutional principle that one cannot change the composition of an authority and have as a result a change in political control, because that contravenes all the conventions and precedents and is wholly antidemocratic. If the Government believe that they will carry through this place and the other place, later this year or next year, a Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties and to replace them by other authorities, then, when the time comes, the services that the people want to receive—education, highways, social services, housing—will be governed and run by people who are, at least in part, elected for that purpose. But, for the time being, they must be governed and run in accordance with the most recently expressed views of the electors. No other decisions are appropriate.
When the electors sent us here last June, they did not send us here to run the local councils, the Greater London or metropolitan counties, or to decide that their composition should be changed. The Minister and the Secretary of State know well that nowhere in the Tory programme last June did it say that elections would be overruled and the political balance of any authority changed. It did say that the metropolitan counties and the GLC would be abolished, but it said no more, and it certainly did not presage this ridiculous and appalling elaboration upon that theme.
The amendments would at least make the Government think again. I await with interest and amazement to see how it can be claimed—and until recently the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State for the Environment had a good reputation for political integrity and for understanding something about political philosophy—that what the Government are advocating is consistent with that integrity and honesty. They are not doing their duty by their electors. As Government Back Benchers have said, the Government will probably do their party's local government reputation a great disservice. More important, they are breaching the constitutional convention that the political colour of local councils is not determined by other than the electoral process.
Even though Opposition Members think that the whole system is a sham and ought to be abolished, I thought that at least we believed in elections in this country. The tragedy is that it appears that the Government now do not even want to advocate elections. Any of the amendments would at least improve that position. I urge the Government to say that they will think again, because that is the least they can do to retain any semblance of decency before the country and the House.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I support the amendment. I shall say no more about the gerrymander involved in the clause, not only because I think that enough has been said and it is generally agreed to be so, but because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for reasons that we well understand, cannot be here. I shall only say that I thought, in the small hours of the morning, that there was a slight

tinge of "1984" in what he said, but that may have been because of the late hour. It seems to me that the lack of political scruple being shown is, at best, stupid.
I support the amendment because of the wording of subsection (5), which the amendment proposes to delete. The first part of that subsection says:
Each constituent council shall, so far as practicable, exercise its power to make or terminate appointments under this Part of this Act so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing … is reflected".
That, to my mind, is the sort of meaningless nonsense which should not be put forward by a Government or passed by the House. What does "the balance of parties" mean?
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in a most persuasive speech, talked about the situation in Waltham Forest and I ventured to interrupt him. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary has kindly confirmed that what I said was right and that the figures for Waltham Forest are, roughly, 25 Conservatives, 26 Labour and six Liberal — SDP alliance. What, for that council, does
the balance of parties for the time being
mean? On that basis the nominations could be one Conservative and two Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal, or, depending on how it was voted, two Liberal and one Conservative. There is no way in which the clause can take effect; there is no way in which the balance of parties can be achieved.
An even more fundamental point is this. Schedule 1 gives the names of a number of councils which will nominate two councillors to the GLC. They are Westminster, Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Barking, Sutton, Merton, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond, Hounslow, Harrow and Haringey. When a council can nominate only two councillors, assuming that we do not have a one—party system, how can a balance of parties possibly be achieved? If two councillors are nominated from the same party and there is not a one—party council, that is not a balance. If a councillor is nominated from each party and parties are not equally represented, that is not a balance. The situation is even more absurd if there are three parties.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State replies to this group of amendments he will attach some meaning to the subsection, because at the moment it has none. It is entirely wrong that the Government should be enjoining councils to do something that it is impossible for them to do. So far, I have heard nothing from the Government that gives it a meaning. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the subsection seeks to give spurious respectability to an obvious gerrymander, but the unfortunate thing is that it fails to do so.

Mr. Marlow: I know how properly my right hon. Friend is committed to local democracy, but will it not be possible for each authority on its own to make its own decision as to how the clause should be applied? Is not that the solution?

Sir Ian Gilmour: In that case, what is the point of the clause? If that is what the Government intended, the subsection should read, "each council will behave in a way that seems fair to it". But that is not what subsection (5) says— perhaps my hon. Friend has not read it. If he


does, he will see that his interpretation is not reasonable. It is a course that is reasonable in itself but it is not a meaning that can be attached to the subsection.
Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State tell us how councils should behave? They, and we, ought to know. It would be quite wrong for the House to pass a Bill that contains a subsection that is completely meaningless and impracticable. For that reason, if for no other, the subsection should not be approved by the House.

Mr. Wareing: The clause that we seek to amend is further evidence of the motives behind the Government's decision to forge ahead with the legislation. The real aim has been revealed again; it is simply a matter of pressing the Government's party political prejudice to the point where they seek to demolish all their opponents, not by force of argument but by attempting to abolish them.
Indeed, there could be no finer monument erected outside county hall to the memory of governor Elbridge Gerry than that of the Secretary of State who is promoting the Bill. [Interruption.] I hope that I have managed to educate even one or two hon. Members on my own side, although they require little education. Elbridge Gerry was the governor who first introduced the gerrymander in the United States. It seems that we are encouraging yet another bad American habit.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have some experience of these matters myself. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend, through you, Mr. Walker, whether he would be erecting the monument as a tribute to the Secretary of State, the Parliamentary Under—secretary, the Prime Minister, or, indeed, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for his opposition to the provision. I think that the Committee needs to know the details of my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Wareing: I do not want to put the GLC to too much expense, and therefore I do not want to make too large a monument. The Bill is in itself a monument, a monument of failure to any political party that argues that it is still adhering to the principles of freedom and democracy in this country.
5.15 pm
I should like to repeat something that I mentioned yesterday. Although I believe that the Government's aim in the clause is to change the party political balance on the transitional councils from the present state of the parties on the existing councils of the metropolitan councils and the GLC, with the one glowing exception of the GLC, they have failed. There is no doubt in my mind that, as a result of the borough and district council elections in Merseyside last Thursday the composition of the transitional councils will now carry Labour majorities.
As long as the Government pursue policies of restricting the powers of local authorities, whether by presenting them with arbitrary targets, or with GREs which are meaningless in social terms to the people living in different areas, or by rate capping, they will raise the consciousness of voters in working class areas, such as Merseyside. People on the streets of Liverpool are discussing local government in a way that they were not discussing it only a few months ago. They are talking of GREs and of Government targets. They really understand what the Government are doing, unlike, I think the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym).

I am sure that he is an honourable man and has honourable intentions of supporting the amendments which I hope that the House will support tonight—amendment No. 20 and the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. But the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east is quite wrong.
The motives of this Conservative Government are quite different from the motives of previous Conservative Governments. I am sure that there are Conservative Members who wish to rebel against what is happening, but this Conservative Government are trying to stifle opposition—as they have tried with the Trade Union Bill. Their suggestion there—it was not carried through to the nth degree — was that they would control the political levy and the finances of their major opponents in the House.
This legislation is all of a piece. Clause 2, which we now seek to amend, is aimed in the same direction. It is aimed at stifling opposition. It will not succeed, because the electors of this country are far more awake than the Prime Minister and her minions — they are all her minions these days—in the Government.
The transitional council on Merseyside will be Labour controlled, but we shall come to discuss the joint boards which will be enshrined in the Bill that we are threatened with next Session. I am afraid that even with the massive electoral swing to the Labour party in Merseyside the joint board will be faced by a hung council and with a balance of power problem, and if anyone wants to recommend a hung council or a hung joint board to this House, let him look at the 10 years' history of the city of Liverpool between 1973 and 1983. That is no advertisement for hung councils, but it is the sort of council that would be perpetuated if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) were put on the statute book.
There would be a transitional council made up of councillors, some of whom were elected in 1981, some in 1982 and some in 1983. During at least two of those three years the electorate was rather more favourably disposed to the Conservative party than it was in last Thursday's elections. There is something to be said for recognising the most recent councillors as the ones who have a mandate — if there is such a thing — from the voters. Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 would ensure that no drastic change in the balance would be brought about by a nondemocratic system of nominating councillors to serve rather than electing them.
I again make the point that we are talking about replacing existing county councillors not with even the same number of nominated district councillors, but with only half the number, with all that that will mean to councillors who have heavy burdens in areas of great social deprivation such as the one that I represent.
With my experience of Liberal hegemony in a city council, I am not likely to quote Liberals, but I shall quote a former Liberal Prime Minister. Sir Henry Campbell—bannerman once said that self—government was always better than good government. No matter what the Tory Front Bench believes to be the rights and the wrongs of the political strategy of Ken Livingstone in London or of Ke va Coombes in Merseyside, those people have been elected by the democratic votes of the people and it is far better that people make their own mistakes than that mistakes should be imposed on them by autocratic Governments such as the one inflicted, albeit by the electorate, on the
country at present. I would rather see an elected Conservative council on Merseyside than a nominated Labour one. That is the difference between me and other democrats. Those imposing this clause and this Bill on the country are really autocrats at heart and their democracy is no more than skin deep.
No doubt we shall again lose the vote on the amendment, although we shall have won the argument as we have on so many occasions since 9 June last year, and although there will be honourable exceptions on the Tory Benches who will try to save their party from the headlong leap that it is now taking in the direction of non—democratic politics. But no matter what happens in the Division Lobbies later, in the long run the will of a free people will not be thwarted even by the present Government because those people cannot be dragged through the Division Lobbies. People in Liverpool have been able to discuss local government in a way that they have never been able to discuss it before because democratic rights are threatened by the Government and I believe that in the nottoo—distant future the people of this country will rise in their millions and ensure that the present Government are swept from power not by nomination but by a democratic election.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I realise why our debate has ranged somewhat wide of the amendments under discussion. Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and refute some of the criticisms of the way that the part of the Bill to which subsection (5) is an addition deals with minority representation.
I do not think that the Government can be accused of being anti—democratic in trying to remove the upper tier of councils, where they exist in conurbations. Let me put a counter—point to the hon. Gentleman. We shall be giving more power and authority and wider functions to elected councils in the lower tier, some of which are even more profoundly opposed to the Government in certain respects than is the upper tier. Liverpool council itself is a beneficiary of the devolution of some of the powers conferred by our two Bills. The hon. Gentleman's accusation is not really fair. The two Bills—this Bill, and the main Bill which will come forward in the autumn —are part of a process of moving, in one part of the country at least, to more powerful unitary authorities, and there is nothing anti—democratic about that.
There is, of course, a much narrower point about the consequences of our decision not to follow the precedent set by previous reorganisations, when the terms of sitting councillors were prolonged. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym) rightly pointed out that the new position is unprecedented. A whole section of local government is being taken away without being replaced at the same level. Some of the choppy water through which we are going probably derives from the absence of a precedent.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, quite fairly, in his winding—up speech on Second Reading that he understood why we did not go ahead and hold elections for the lame—duck council next year. The argument is about whether we should prolong the terms of sitting councillors or, as we have proposed, allow the

appointment of elected councillors from the lower tier—who will be the inheritors of the service — to sit as councillors in the upper tier, and to preside over the passing down of functions to the lower tier. I hope that we can return to the rather narrower point represented by that undoubtedly controversial decision, which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends consider wrong.
The amendments address themselves to a part of the Bill which makes provision for minority representation. In principle, I found little to disagree with in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who welcomed the Bill's attempt to make provision for minorities. His criticism was that we had not done that clearly enough, and had left ourselves with problems. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also recognised that, once this step had been taken, it was sensible to try to make provision for minorities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east seemed to be asking us to delete subsection (5) and come back with wider proposals. But simply deleting the subsection would not affect the change in control of the GLC. The GLC would still go Conservative without minority representation, so that point is not directly material.
Perhaps it is worth recalling why we consider minority representation important on the councils. We need not have taken that step. Appointments under subsection (5) are to full councils, not sub—committees or anything else. It should not be forgotten that the appointments are being made not to new bodies, but to existing upper tier full councils, as opposed to appointed committees. The GLC and the MCCs will, of course, continue to exist during the transitional period, even if for 11 months they are indirectly rather than directly elected. Therefore, it is right and proper that they should include minority representation as if they had been directly elected.
5.30 pm
Both the alternatives on offer to us—the prolongation or the appointment of lower tier authorities — were bound to be unsatisfactory in some respects. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made it clear that the prolongation of the councils would be so unsatisfactory — the councils would have no mandate and would therefore be bogus — that he would recommend his friends not to serve. That is why the Bill provides, so far as is practicable, for constituent councils to reflect party balance when making appointments to the GLC and the MCCs.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Bearing in mind the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) about the freedom of the boroughts to decide on their nomination methods and so on, may I ask what will happen if the Labour boroughs refuse to participate and the Labour party nationally decides on a policy of non—participation? It looks to me as though that is what will happen, given the present mood of Labour councillors, including the councillors in the Labour minority in Hillingdon whom I consulted. Would not such a policy result in a wholesale shambles?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge answered that point in his reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford


and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis). There is a duty on the councils to nominate members, but if Labour councillors choose not to serve, they choose not to serve. I hope that they would not take such an irresponsible attitude.
I realise that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) carry weight. Having once decided that the full councils should include minority representation, I concede that it is impossible to produce a clear and simple formula that will give a satisfactory answer in every case. I shall come back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on this matter.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps I may finish my argument before the hon. Gentleman shoots it down. We believe that in the majority of cases the arrangements will be perfectly straightforward and there will be a pretty obvious way of making proportional membership fit in with the shape of a lower tier council. In some cases, there will be two or three different ways of proceeding, and one method may be as good as another.
All that we have laid on the lower tier authorities is the duty to behave reasonably. If they do not, they may be taken to court. In such cases the court would have to decide not who the members should be, but whether the council had behaved in a reasonable manner or whether it had produced an absurd outcome.
Having said that, I accept my right hon. Friend's fair criticism that different results may be produced in two councils with a similar balance in the lower tier because if both the decisions were reasonable the court might say, "It is six of one and half a dozen of the other."

Mr. Straw: I entirely share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the inadvisability of prolonging councils. We have stated clearly that we believe that there should be elections. May I ask the Under—secretary why, having decided against prolongation and against new elections, he believes that this proposal is the only way of securing representation from the boroughs? Why would it not have been possible to require the boroughs to nominate representatives in such a way as to ensure representation that reflected their existing composition? If, for example, there were three GLC members in its area—two Tory and one Labour—a borough council would nominate two Tory councillors and one Labour councillor from its own ranks. That would have avoided completely the gerrymander criticism. Why has the Under—secretary not followed through that scheme?

Mr. Waldegrave: I make two points. First, without trying to embarrass him I should point out that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) took a different view on Second Reading. He said that he quite understood why we had taken the decision that we did and he then said that he thought that it was the wrong one. I think that he has since had his back stiffened slightly by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
The formula which the hon. Member for Blackburn offers us would be a recipe for complete confusion. We have two choices. One is to continue with the present upper tier council, the second is to move to the only other democratically accountable, legitimate power base

available which is the lower tier councils. To use the lower—tier councils to try to recreate the upper tier would be a dog's breakfast: it would be much simpler to prolong the upper tier councils. Of the options on offer so far I do not find that offered by the hon. Member for Blackburn particularly attractive.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend has not yet dealt with the most crucial point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), which is that the terms of schedule I render it absolutely impossible for the local councils to comply with the directions under subsection (5). One cannot possibly make a proper attempt at representing the balance on the councils when there are three parties on the councils and only two members with whom to make that attempt.

Mr. Waldegrave: I tried to make it clear in my response to my right hon. Friend that the duty laid on the lower tier council is to get as near as it can: there will be circumstances where it will not be able to achieve it. I am quite willing to admit that. That is one of the costs of trying to produce the minority representation which we want:. We have to accept that there will be some imperfect situations. It is no good trying to disguise that.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for drawing attention to views I expressed earlier. I should like it to be made absolutely clear—perhaps the Minister would care to comment on this—that I and a number of my hon. Friends such as my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North—west (Mr. Banks) and Leyton (Mr. Cohen) are completely opposed to the idea of extension in office by appointment. We want it reiterated that we believe that people should hold public office only through election and that public office should not be in the Government's gift.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs my help in self—advertisement. His views are well known and, indeed, are displayed in a number of surprising places about his anatomy.
I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge . He says that while what is being attempted is clear, not enough detail has been provided, and that it would be better to write in detailed instructions for the lower tier councils. I expect that he has found that considerable difficulties are involved in attempting to produce a satisfactory detailed manual. There is the difficulty of defining individual political parties. for example, and that of defining majority and minority. Indeed, my hon. Friend's amendment itself to some extent illustrates my point.
Amendment No. 21 begins by referring to the "principal minority party" and then tries to define what happens to that party's representation, but nowhere do the definitions refer again to the principal minority party. Instead, reference is made to "the minority parties together" or to the "larger minority party". It would be difficult to try to decide whether "larger" meant "principal" and so on.
It is unfair to criticise an amendment when the point of it is clear. I do so only because we have tried to produce similar amendments and repeatedly have encountered the fact that by trying to put such a provision in the Bill even more anomalies and oddities potentially are produced. However, if a council has a duty only to make a reasonable


and sensible attempt, and that attempt is challenged, a court will often decide that, taking everything into account, the people involved have tried to fulfil their duty.
We have tried to wrestle with such a provision as that proposed by my hon. Friend. We cannot consider accepting an amendment along the lines that he has proposed, but we will consider whether we can produce a document of illustration or guidance to which the Bill might refer, and we shall consider amendments to the Bill that would refer to that document. Therefore, there would be advice on hand for councils which genuinely were trying to do it right. Those who want to cause trouble and make a fool of the legislation can always do so. The courts will have to stop that. However, there might be genuine cases of doubt. We might be able to produce a document to help and guide in such instances.

Mr. Shersby: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a code of practice or a similar document. I presume that such guidance or code of practice would not have statutory force. One worrying aspect of the nominated authority is that the interests of the minorities should be protected by statute. It is one thing for us to express in the House the hope that all local authorities will act reasonably and sensibly and another to place that requirement upon them. But we cannot be sure that they will act reasonably and sensibly.
Furthermore, I am anxious about the position of the aggrieved minority if it had to pursue the matter to court. The cost would be substantial. Presumably, the parties involved would not have access to legal aid or to financial aid provided by the local authority. Therefore, it would be difficult for an aggrieved minority to pursue its grievance to the courts.
I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of expert parliamentary draftsmen—I am certainly not one of them—to produce a watertight formula. I urge my hon. Friend to attempt to do that and at the same time build it into the statute so that it is not an extraneous form of guidance or code of practice, but has statutory force and has been approved by the House.

The Chairman: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Waldegrave: Although I shall of course consult again on whether the details could be given statutory force, I am not optimistic that such a solution will be feasible. I have mapped out the route of giving some kind of guidance note. It would not be the kind of detailed code that would cause the same problems as if the provisions were written in statute, but would be illustrative and helpful. Moreover, it could be taken into consideration in court when deciding whether the council had been acting reasonably. For example, had the council looked at the code and had it tried to do what it could to meet the requirements of the duty set upon it? I believe that that is a more helpful route to travel.
As for the principal point of the protection of minorities, which this provision is entirely designed to achieve, the duty to make a reasonable attempt at the representation of the minorities still lies firmly on the council. We are arguing about whether it is possible in the multifarious and differing situations of individual councils to write it all out in black and white in a way that does not

land us in more trouble. In our view, it is impossible to do that. We have to leave it, therefore, to the definition of reasonableness, which I believe will work reasonably well.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but the matter is vital to this subsection. In the GLC there will be 15 councils which have only two representatives on the new body. What would my hon. Friend say to one of those councils if there were a majority of, say, 30 to 20 Conservative to Labour? Should it represent the balance by appointing both Conservative, which gives a majority, or should it appoint one Labour and one Conservative, which does not reflect the majority?

Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps the best answer I could give would be to produce the guidance note that I have described. I do not want to disguise the fact that two or more answers would satisfy the test of reasonableness. We could give helpful guidance.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: My hon. Friend is missing the point. If the seats are 30:20 between the two parties, there is no guidance note in the world that would fairly represent the balance of the parties. With two representatives for a borough, there are only two possibilities—two to one party and none to the other, or one each. Neither of those possibilities fairly represents the spectrum of numbers from 0 to 100. It is logically impossible.

Mr. Waldegrave: With respect to my hon. Friend, I entirely understand the point. I am saying that in some situations the party balance cannot be effectively represented.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Might I suggest that this could, in part, be met by an increase in the representation to allow a different solution to be found?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course. The bigger the council, the easier it is to fine tune, but one then faces other difficulties as a result of having an unwieldy council. We have already been rightly told that there is a limit to the number of councillors in the lower tiers who will have the time and experience to do these jobs. So there is a danger in going too far down that road.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Surely the basis of my hon. Friend's case is that these interim provisions will last only for 11 months anyhow. As the Bill is now drafted, the implication is that there will be the equivalent of one representative in the quango for every two representatives that there are currently in the GLC. Surely it would therefore be more sensible for my hon. Friend to agree to leave out subsection (5), think about it again, and come back with more constructive proposals to meet the points.

Mr. Waldegrave: There are several different points. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has not noticed that the Bill says, at the beginning of subsection (5), "as far as practicable". Those words would not be there if we had not realised that it would not be practicable in some cases.
Two principal issues have emerged from this debate. The first is whether we could have more detail in terms of the division of numbers. I suspect that if we tried to write that in detail in statute it would land us in more trouble, but we shall certainly have another look at that possibility.


I imagine that the guidance note is more sensible. The other possibility, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is so keen, is for us to make the council bigger. We shall have another look at that, but there is the danger of getting an unwieldy transitional council, as well as the difficulties that I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge..

Mr. Straw: Will not the Under—secretary admit for once that his endeavour to secure a political balance simply defies the laws of arithmetic and is impossible.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is getting overexcited. I have freely admitted to my hon. Friends that there is no perfect way of doing it. We can produce in these councils a perfectly defensible and reasonable—that is the legal word that will lie at the heart of the matter—minority representation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The words in the clause do not refer to reasonableness. They impose an absolute duty "so far as practicable". If those words are left in, reasonableness cannot apply. In no fewer than eight councils in London, there are more than two parties. Therefore, any formula that has a preponderance of only two representatives is bound to fail. Therefore, the wording, "balance of parties" has to go if the clause is to make any sense.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman shot himself in the foot then because he said that the clause is absolute and added, "so far as practicable". Perhaps he shot himself in both feet, as suggested by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans).
I do not wish to disguise that in the attempt to find a formula we shall not find an exact and perfect solution for every situation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, it is worth trying to provide for a minority voice on these short—lived councils.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Bill is an utter shambles. It is a major constitutional cock—up. I almost feel sorry for the Parliamentary Under—secretary when he was being assailed from all sides. He seems a decent sort. Given his function as the all—dancing, all—singing Parliamentary Under—secretary, he has an impossible job. It would assist us if he were to admit that. We might all then have more sympathy for him.
The Government Front Bench team is led by the political equivalent of the Vicar of Bray who has now slipped away. The Secretary of State has not the stomach to see what is going on. As well as the all—dancing and all-singing Parliamentary Under—secretary, there is the acceptable face of Tory extremism in the lengthy shape of the Minister of State. They know that they do not have a case. I really wish that they would come clean, be honest and admit it. They should realise that we are in a terrible mess. The provision is badly thought out—if it has been thought out at all. We are getting more and more into the mire.
It is often said that history repeats itself—the first time as tragedy and then as a farce. This is the farce, but it is a dangerous farce. It is an undemocratic farce. With all the criticisms made by senior and respected Conservative Members, I should have thought that the Government Front Bench would have begun to rethink the provision radically. Surely London and the rest of the country cannot be left with this constitutional restructure.
What would the Tory gutter press such as the Daily Mail and The Sun and the Daily Express say if a Labour Government introduced such a measure? I hope that we would never introduce such a shambles. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made it clear that his hon. Friends will be putting the boot in with great enthusiasm.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such problems are not unknown in the House when Committees are being formed? I refer to the bottom tier, which the hon. Gentleman is describing. That problem also relates to Committees being formed in the House. He will recall the problems at the beginning of the Session.

Mr. Banks: I accept that, but we are inflicting those problems on ourselves. The Bill is inflicting problems on somebody else. Enough hon. Members have tried to sort out the mess by asking what would happen in their councils and boroughs in which their constituencies are located.
What would we read in the Tory gutter press if a Labour Government had proposed such a measure—what, for example, would we read in the Daily Express? We know what it would be —that we are all in the pay of Moscow. I know that several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen believe that anyway. Those papers would say that the Labour Government were dragging the country towards east European totalitarianism.
This morning I received a delegation from the German Democratic Republic and I tried to explain to them what was happening. It is difficult enough to explain it to my constituents, but to do so to visitors from the GDR. was nigh on impossible—a late night in the House did not make my task any easier. When I told those visitors about the proposal, they marvelled at the Prime Minister' s and the Government's authority and power. I cited the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who referred to an elective dictatorship. That is what we now have; there is an arrogance of power which defies and beggars adequate description.
I console myself with the fact that the measure is destroying the Government's credibility. That is worthwhile from our point of view. If that is the price which the GLC pays for its own demise, that would be a fair exchange—the end of the GLC for the end of the Government's credibility. Surely Conservative Members realise that the measure is doing the Government's image outside the House a great deal of damage. I for one am very glad of that.
The Bill refers to political parties. It is, I understand, the first time that such a reference has appeared in an English Bill, and no doubt the Opposition will make much of that.
We are discussing political balance and changing, at a stroke, the political control of an authority — in this instance, the GLC. I refer again to the widely leaked document on local government policies which the Vicar of Bray — or, rather, the Secretary of State for the Environment — circulated as a briefing to Cabinet Ministers. The Secretary of State was trying to help his colleagues over some difficult obstacles. One question in the brief is:
How will political balance be enforced?
The answer was:
It will be a statutory requirement. Obviously it won't be possible to reflect political balance exactly in nominations.
Well, he can say that again. The answer continues:
Individual authorities will have to work out their own method of complying with the statutory requirement. In case of dispute the matter would have to go to the courts.
What does that mean for a chief executive in a local authority when he tries to work through the Bill's provisions?
The Parliamentary Under—secretary keeps referring to the statutory requirement. At some time, that requirement must be interpreted. It will be no good the court reading our proceedings. First, it is not allowed to have regard to what we say and, secondly, it would not assist the court one jot if it read about our proceedings in the Official Report. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary knows that the proposal is a mess. He has no answer to it and everyone in Committee today knows that the Government have set themselves an unattainable objective.
Perhaps we may now consider how the political balance will be achieved in some of the authorities. The composition of Havering borough council is 59 per cent. Conservative, 19 per cent. Labour, 8 per cent. Liberal/SDP and 14 per cent. other. Clearly two of the three seats would go to the Conservative party. Where would the third one go? Would it go to the Labour party which comprises 19 per cent. of the council's seats, to the Liberal/SDP alliance which has 8 per cent., or to the other which has 14 per cent?
That brings us up against another obstacle. What is a political party, as mentioned in the Bill? Who will define such a party? Are the Havering ratepayers association and the Havering independent and ratepayers group political parties, and are they so recognised? If they are, and if they do a deal with the SDP/Liberal alliance, they will end up with 22 per cent. of the seats, which will give them 3 per cent. more than Labour, and appear to make them eligible.

6 pm

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about my local authority, I thank him for that suggestion, which I shall be happy to pass on to the ratepayers.

Mr. Banks: I should be interested to see whether they would be prepared to deal with the SDP/Liberal alliance or with Labour. I always thought that independents and ratepayers were Tories anyway.
I have illustrated what takes place throughout the boroughs. Chief executives will have to advise their members. Whether or not the Labour party on the different London councils decides to participate is irrelevant at this stage. Chief executives will have to give information to members so that a decision can be made.
I asked the Secretary of State to say what advice was being given to borough councils by the Department of the Environment. The answer is very little indeed. I was told that an informal meeting is taking place with borough representatives. I do not know which boroughs' representatives they are, what was said at the meetings, or who the people were. I understand that one borough did not attend the informal discussions. I asked who went, what was said and which borough was excluded. I received a holding answer from the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State that he would write to me as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving the information because much

will hang on it. Given his track record, I doubt whether he will be able to clear up the total confusion into which he is pushing London local government.
None of this lends itself to any form of rational decision making. The Government are giving impossible tasks to local authorities in London by placing a statutory obligation on them that someone will have to untangle and interpret, and it appears that they will get no help or advice from the Government. One can imagine the sort of confusion that will arise with the GLC being dragged through the courts. No doubt there will be many legal challenges during the interim council's time and we can imagine the expense, the problems, the confusion and indeed the anarchy in local government because of what is being forced upon us. It is an utter disgrace, and it is time that the Minister accepted that.

Mr. Edward Heath: I strongly support what has been said by my right hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour); I share their views.
Because of views that I shall express on other matters, may I say that I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for having to handle this matter at this time? This is the most criticised aspect of the whole Bill. Even the London press, which is favourable to our party, has condemned it strongly. I therefore feel that, whatever his other responsibilities, the Secretary of State should have handled this in the Committee and taken full responsibility for it. I express regret that my hon. Friend has been placed in a most invidious position. His speech made clear that he is in that position. He said that the whole course is unsatisfactory, but that having embarked upon it the Government are going ahead with it. It is indeed unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friend said, although at somewhat greater length.
The Bill mentions 32 London boroughs, 15 of which have only two representatives to be put forward as nominated representatives for a new body. It is therefore practically impossible to meet the balance of parties. There are three others which, because of the problem of defining a party—even assuming that one can define a party, which we have never before had to do—will not be able to find a practical solution. Therefore, for more than half the cases with which we have to deal the clause is nonsense. It is not "so far as practicable" in any way possible. To suggest that guidelines should be issued on something that is clearly impossible assumes a divine ability with which I suspect not even my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is endowed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, the late Dick Sharples—who, sadly, was killed in the Caribbean—was a Minister of State at the Home Office. However, Dick was not a Minister at the time when we at the Home Office had the bright idea of defining political parties in legislation that was to be put before the House to enable the name of the political party to be put on ballot papers. Dick, in his delightful way, said to me, "I must tell you this. The Conservative party doesn't exist! There is no such party, and it will cause us the greatest difficulty if the Government attempt to define it." There was a bit of badinage, which I shall not go into now, but Dick was right. That is why we set about making the definition in a different way.

Mr. Heath: I share with the right hon. Gentleman the view that the issue of what a political party is has not been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary; that is a basic objection to the clause.
Then there is the matter of referring any cases of doubt to the courts. If a clause is physically impossible to carry through, how can a court give a decision on whether a council is carrying out its obligation? Clearly that is impossible. The Bill is laying an obligation on the courts which they are incapable of carrying out; it must therefore be bad legislation and should not be passed by the House. The problem for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary is that all the difficulties flow from the original decision, which was wrong. Surely he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when they saw the difficulties, should have realised that the Bill was unsuitable as part of the process of change which they want to bring about. My hon. Friend did not deal with this issue. The process, if it could be carried out, would mean a transfer of power in London from the Labour party to the Conservative party by edict of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend believe that that is morally or politically justifiable? I cannot believe that he will say that it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—I am sorry that he is not here at present — made an intervention in which we heard the true voice of authoritarianism. He said that there would be a rump council, but who will cause that? It will be this Government and Parliament. Phrases such as, "They will be there for only a short time" are the sort of phrases whichwe heard in the 1930s. The attitude then was "Ah well, it's temporary and doesn't matter because important decisions will not be taken. Matters can be left to Parliament." Again, that was the true voice of authoritarianism. The process must be stopped.
I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now here. I put the same question to him: does he believe that it is morally or politically justifiable to change the political control of the authority in the capital city by edict of Parliament? Whatever is said about the difficulties involved, that is what my right hon. Friend is asking the House to do. If the clause is passed, it is bound to happen. I believe that the proposal is completely immoral and should never be sanctioned by the Conservative party.
I ask the House to consider carefully a quotation. I ask the Labour Opposition to consider it also even though it does not mention them:
Conservatives, like Liberals, should greatly fear the present tyranny of the House of Commons. Unchecked, in other than trivial senses, by the House of Lords or the Monarch; dominating the courts and the traditions of common law with an ever—increasing volume of statute—law … brandishing the theory of the detailed mandate in the face of reasoned argument, the legal power of a majority in the present British House of Commons has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished … it is possible at present for an administration with a majority, if it has for the time being defeated civil service opposition, or if the issue is one with which the civil service is not concerned, to be revolutionary in the most frivolous possible way. With analysis of the consequences of the most intellectually shoddy kind, governments may nationalise great industries, impose laws on Trade Unions, threaten the freedom of the press, or destroy the housing market. Fashions arise, in legislation as in anything else —for the floating of the pound, or statutory incomes policy, or the reorganisation of local government—the object may be worthy, but the plan can be carried through far too easily.
Those are the words of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State for the Environment in "Binding

Leviathan". What has brought about this change? He stands at the Dispatch Box using arguments which cannot be intellectually justified and which contradict everything that he so rightly wrote in his own book. He went on:
In reality, of course, such power is limited by the fact that a democratically elected body is much averse to enforcing anything, at least against anyone who can make a fuss and cause Ministerial unpopularity.
I thought at first that there were grounds for hope—if we can make Ministers unpopular enough, we may get a proper solution. But it does not appear to be so.
Finally, my hon. Friend asks why a Government should be bound by every clause in their first edition of a Bill. Of course they should not be. They should listen to reasoned arguments. This debate has shown, above everything, that this clause is completely unsustainable. It will lead to a completely immoral, unpolitical and impractical position. The House of Commons should not tolerate that for a moment.

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and everyone outside must have been aghast at the deafening silence in response to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman of his own colleagues, not once, but twice. We must therefore draw our own conclusion when they refuse to answer a perfectly legitimate question, sincerely and honestly asked. I hope, even at this late stage, that a Minister will intervene in my speech to answer that question. It goes right to the root of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North—west (Mr. Banks) is a remarkable man. He said that he had explained the Bill to a group of visiting Germans, yet the Minister of State spent 15 minutes trying unsuccessfully to convince his own party. My hon. Friend is a walking genius. Perhaps he should take the Government Front Bench Members outside and explain it to them. In replying to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State had the audacity to say that if any of those councils tried to make a foot of the Bill he would deal with them. I have news for him. It is impossible to make a fool of something that is already foolish. He needs no help from those councils. He is doing a magnificent job. It took him 15 minutes—I have four children, three of whom are at school — and a BSc degree to work out that three into two would not go. That revelation will be greeted right across the country.
6.15 pm
This is a Bill of absolute utter nonsense. I felt very sorry for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. [HON.MEMBERS: "Why?"] He had no case. He strove manfully to make a case out of nothing.

Mr. Walter Harrison: He is nodding.

Mr. Cowans: Of course. He knows that he has no case. I sat thinking, "Quit when you're ahead," but at no stage could he quit because he was never there. It was disastrous to place him in that situation, but we can help him. Indeed, he can help himself. In the amendment, we are suggesting the deletion of subsection 5—that subsection of rubbish which even the Minister's hon. Friends have now told him is unworkable. Clearly we should like to see the whole Bill deleted, but if subsection (5) is deleted at least some sense will be made of what at present is nonsense.
The Minister of State inadvertently misled the Committee. If subsection (5) is removed, the nominations


part of the clause remains. That will allow the local authorities to decide whom and how they will nominate. They know—they have known for a considerable time —that three into two will not go, and they will make a sensible decision. That is the whole basis of the amendment. No one is saying that the amendment is perfect, but we all know that the Bill is nonsense, so we are trying to make a little common sense out of it. If the Minister agreed to that, the local authorities would have the right to nominate whom they wanted to serve them on the interim body until the main legislation was passed.
It is bad enough to take away the people's right to vote, but then to impose on them the order, "Thou shalt pick only those whom I tell you to pick" is even worse. That, fundamentally, is what is happening.
Much play has been made with the political control and balance of the existing districts. Not a word has been said about the existing political control of the GLC. If it is valid in one context, surely it must be valid in another. Although the Government do not like it, political control of the GLC was gained through the ballot box. The Conservative Government are trying to achieve, in the GLC—I shall come to the other metropolitan councils in a moment—what they could not achieve by the will of the people. If that is not sleight of hand and gerrymandering, I do not know what is.
In the metropolitan councils, the Government are achieving by this method more seats for their party than they ever achieved through the ballot box. In my council of Tyne and Wear, they have never achieved as many seats as they have allocated to themselves—not through the will of the people but by gerrymandering and rigging; there is no other name for it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not here. If what he said was not naive, I do not know what is. He explained away all that concerned his own party by saying, "Why, it is only temporary," as if he were talking about putting in a bunch of caretakers for a short time. The interim body may well have to determine a rate. If that is not political, what is? At the same time, it will be representing people and running services vital to those people, so it is not as if it was some temporary measure which will go away. People—if there is any reason for this debate, this is it—must realise how easy it is for democracy to be taken away from them if they sit idly by. It takes an afternoon or a day in this Parliament to do away with the rights of 18 million people to vote. I give them this warning. They had better be careful, or this Government may stay in permanently, because general elections could be next.
Our case was made very well by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who is sincerely trying to do something here. Obviously I disagree with it and I shall come to that in a minute. One of the premises he mentioned in favour of his amendment was that the borough elections were more recent than the GLC elections. I shall give him an answer to that: hold the elections for the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and we cannot get any more recent than that. If that is the argument, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to be in the Lobby to vote against the Bill, so that the elections can go ahead. There can be no more recent decision than that.
But, again, the political complexion of the existing authority is not taken account of, so, by deviousness, the GLC goes Tory—not by the will of the people via the ballot box but by the will of this Government. If that is not deplored inside and outside the Chamber, we are in deep trouble.
There are many inconsistencies in amendment No. 21. If we are really seeking political balance, how can we say that, when the minority parties have at least 33 per cent., only the larger minority party has the seats? The two statements are inconsistent. Later the amendment says that, where the minority parties have 25 per cent., only the larger minority party gets seats. Therefore, it is not a spread of political bias across the board but a method of putting more Tories on the GLC. Although I do not think that he drafted the amendment with that intention, that would be the outcome.
However, I have no news for the hon. Gentleman. There is one way, and one way only, that he could persuade me to support amendment No. 21. If every Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, resigned his or her seat tonight and we applied the hon. Gentleman's criteria and let the local government people come in according to them, we would probably get a Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that, there is a good chance that I will support him, because that is exactly what the Government are doing to the local authorities. They are not worrying about the ballot box. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a few seconds to stand up and say that he will do that. Then we can all resign and go home tonight. If he will apply his criteria for local authorities to Members of the House, he has a good chance of getting my support.
Apart from that, in no way does the amendment make the Bill better. In my humble opinion, it makes it worse. To honour their manifesto commitment to give freedom to local government — apparently "freedom" means abolishing it — the Government must accept our amendment deleting subsection (5) and allow the local authorities to get on with the job which it is patently obvious neither the Secretary of State nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary can do. That has been demonstrated today.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I share the sympathy that has been expressed by others for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State because of the impossible task with which he has been landed. It seems odd to me that the group of amendments involves issues on which the Government could reasonably make concessions without a major loss of face.
Subsection (5) has been adequately dissected by several right hon. and hon. Members and it has been clearly demonstrated to the Committee that, as it stands, it is nonsense. Given that it is nonsense, surely it is not beyond the Government to accept that it is nonsense and to come forward with an amendment to cope with the points that have been so well put by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—I think that I quote him correctly— said that councils will wish to do the right thing. I am sure that if the Bill as drafted becomes law, councils will genuinely wish to do the right thing, but it will be utterly impossible for them to do so, given the existence of subsection (5) and schedule 1. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about the amendments.
The Government's difficulties stem from the fact that they maintain that there is no precedent for the present situation, in which they seek to abolish one type of local authority and, instead of transferring the powers to a new set of local authorities, transfer them to existing local authorities. The Government are correct in saying that, but there are plenty of adequate precedents that can be invoked to take account of the present situation. By treating it as though it is wholly unprecedented and by using wholly unprecedented solutions, the Government are trying to legislate in a way that is entirely unacceptable to a large number of hon. Members.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench again whether they would legislate as they propose to do if the situation were reversed. In the past there has been a Conservative majority on the GLC when collectively there were Labour majorities in the London boroughs which would have ensured that on the type of quango proposed there would have been a Labour majority. Would my right hon. Friend have legislated then as he is now? Of course he would not, and he knows it full well.
To remove the powers of an elected majority of one party and pass those powers to an unelected majority of another in a temporary quango is just as unacceptable to me now as it was when the Bill was first debated on Second Reading.
6.30 pm
There is an honourable tradition of gerrymandering against itself in the Conservative party. It happened in the course of the London Government Bill when the then Conservative Government did not accept the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commission — to their own disadvantage. It happened during the passage of the Local Government Act 1972 when, again, amendments were made in respect of the boundaries of some of the metropolitan counties, which ensured that there was disadvantage to the Conservative party. It would be highly regrettable if this excellent, tradition were now breached, and this Conservative Government were to gerrymander—as would be claimed for ever after—for themselves.
The fact that the interim provisions are to last for only 11 months does not make the proposals any more acceptable. They remain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) said yesterday, constitutionally unacceptable. Whatever logical arguments the Government may put forward in support of their Bill—the arguments seem to me pretty thin — constitutionally and politically it remains unacceptable. If amendment No. 20 is not accepted by the Government, the Government will leave the Conservative party open to accusations of malpractice for many years to come, so I hope that the Government will think again.

Mr. Straw: With the solitary and wholly isolated exception of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), no right hon. or hon. Member who has intervened or spoken in the debate, other than from the Treasury Bench, has said a word other than of the deepest opposition to the proposals that we are debating this afternoon.
The Government may win the vote, since many Conservative Members who have not been listening to the debate and have not appreciated the total intellectual and arithmetical bankruptcy of the Government's case will be marched into the Lobby by the Whips.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take no comfort from his so-called victory if that is so. He ought to listens not only to Opposition Members, but to his right hon. and hon. Friends. They are pleading with him, not to save the Labour party, but to save what they regard as important principles for the Conservative party. We know—I say this without disingenuity — that both the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under—secretary are honourable men who command the respect of the Committee. But I must say to them both that there is no spectacle so demeaning as seeing honourable men performing dishonourable deeds, and closing their ears to the arguments and their eyes to the consequences of those deeds.
What the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are proposing this afternoon is dishonourable and disreputable, both to the Committee and to the traditions of the Conservative party. They are proposing to gerrymander, to fix the results of an election which will not take place , and to change political control not through the ballot box but through the edict of the House.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) asked the Parliamentary Under—secretary whether he thought it was morally or politically justified to gerrymander in this way. He would have asked the Secretary of State if he had been present. The Parliamentary Under—secretary was silent. I again offer him a chance to answer that question. Does he personally believe that it is morally or politically justified to change political control in this way without an election?

Mr. Waldegrave: That was the debate that we had last night. Today's debate is on the much narrower point of the representation of minority interests. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put out last night at considerable length and with great force the arguments in favour of the course we are taking on the membership of the transitional councils.

Mr. Straw: All right hon. and hon. Members have heard that answer.

Mr. Bidwell: It was not an answer.

Mr. Straw: It was not an answer. It speaks volumes about the true opinions of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He knows that this course of action is not justified morally, politically or intellectually. If the Secretary of State, who is responsible for pushing the policy through even the considerable barrier of the Prime Minister's instincts, wishes to come to the Dispatch Box to answer the question which is on the lips of every right hon. and hon. Member—that is, whether this is morally or politically justified—I would be happy to give way. Perhaps at the same time he would answer his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) who asked whether the Government would have gone down this road had the GLC been Conservative—controlled and had there been a majority among the representatives from the boroughs. Of course they would not. This is a crude political manoeuvre and the Secretary of State and the Conservative party ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it, It is not too late for them to redeem themselves.
The situation is even more appalling because, not only is the measure morally and politically unjustified; it is also wholly impractical. In no sense is it a piece of good government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge


(Mr. Cowans) put the point with his customary wit when he said that the Conservative party has suddenly discovered that three into two does not go. It certainly does not go.
This provision will drag parliamentary legislation and the courts into disrepute and it will place a burden on the courts to interpret a piece of legislation that is plainly nonsense, not in terms of the normal cut and thrust across the Floor of the House, but in arithmetical terms. It is a piece of impossibilism that cannot be fulfilled and it will produce the most capricious, arbitrary and unfair results. It will not be possible to achieve a political balance.
There is only one solution to the problems that the Secretary of State is now trying to force upon the Committee and that is for the Government to reconsider the whole clause and recognise what they have so far failed to recognise, that the real alternative to this can of worms lies in following precedents. Those caused political arguments but they did not bring Parliament into disrepute or give rise to justified allegations that the Government were gerrymandering political control of particular authorities. That solution would be to allow elections to take place as normal in 1985. If it were then the will of the House, substantive legislation should contain any necessary transitional procedures.
At the very least, it is in the interests of the Secretary of State and his party to accept amendment No. 20 and to remove any possibility of subsection (5) becoming law. I urge my hon. Friends to support amendment No. 20.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: In view of the course of the debate this afternoon, I must add my words of concern to those already expressed by many of my hon. Friends.
Yesterday and today we have had a peculiar and depressing debate about a Government acting not from principle or practicality, but from expediency. The Parliamentary Under—secretary made that only too clear. I fear that that expediency has been sadly tinged with a desire for political manipulation as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). The point was brought home to me very clearly when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke of the possible ramifications of such an action if applied, for instance, to the restructuring of East Sussex county council. I hate to think of the uproar that that would cause in the Conservative heartland of the south.
The Bill changes the balance of parties in the GLC rather than maintaining it. As others have pointed out, it would have changed it elsewhere had it not been for the Labour gains in the recent borough elections. Far better that the present GLC had its time extended, only for 11 months, with additional financial controls applied if necessary, while plans were prepared, reviewed and eventually executed for the repositioning of its current responsibilities.
Whatever route the Government take, I plead with them —as others have pleaded already—to review their plans in clause 2. Clause 2 is crucial. It makes a point that is both practical and philosophical with which the House must always be particularly concerned, because it is about power: not only who has it, but also that no one should have too much of it. Power, when it is unrepresentative

and unanswerable, is a bad thing. Yet the Bill seems to want to establish just such a power, and it is undemocratic of the Government to aim in that direction.
If the Government do not accept this amendment, I beg them to consider a similar one when the Bill goes to another place. At present, it is a paving Bill that is sadly cracked.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Early this morning, when replying to the debate on amendment No. 14, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he had considered the options open to him, including extending the life of the present GLC, and that he had decided against that for practical reasons. I think that he will find, if he looks in Hansard, that he used those words.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: indicated assent.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Having been present for most of the debate, I think that the most fascinating part was the Parliamentary Under—secretary trying to explain how the councils would nominate their members to the new body that would take the place of the old GLC for 11 months. It was clear that he was finding it very difficult to explain. None of us could be sure exactly how the arithmetic would work out, and what would be the solution to the problems of the many councils which would have to decide whether they had one member from each party, or two members from one party and one member from another. He said that he would give us a code of practice or guidelines, but was clearly uncertain how he would be able to provide such guidance.
6.45 pm
If my right hon. Friend has really decided on such action, for "practical reasons" when he reads Hansard tomorrow he must see that the way he has chosen cannot be the most practical. On his own arguments, he really ought to think again.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 271.

Division No. 289]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Clwyd, Ms Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnett, Guy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cowans, Harry


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bell, Stuart
Craigen, J. M.


Benn, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cunningham, Dr John


Benyon, William
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'!)


Blair, Anthony
Deakins, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Buchan, Norman
Dykes, Hugh


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Evans, John (St. Helens N) 


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell—savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carter—jones, Lewis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fisher, Mark


Clarke, Thomas
Flannery, Martin


Clay, Robert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael






Forrester, John
Michie, William


Foster, Derek
Mikardo, lan


Fraser, J.(Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, John
Park, George


Ground, Patrick
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Patchett, Terry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Penhaligon, David


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pike, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Randall, Stuart


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rathbone, Tim


Hoyle, Douglas
Redmond, M


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George


Janner, Hon Greville
Rooker, J. W


John, Brynmor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Kilroy—silk, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archibald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Edward
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


Maclennan, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, R.


McTaggart, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maxton, John



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meacher, Michael
Mr. James Hamilton and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Allen McKay


Meyer, Sir Anthony



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brandon—bravo, Martin


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Amess, David
Brinton, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Browne, John


Baker, Nicholas
Bruinvels, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Bulmer, Esmond


Buck, Sir Antony
Bulmer, Esmond


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cash, William


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Churchill, W. S.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)



Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Colvin, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Coombs, Simon
Key, Robert


Cope, John
Kilfedder, James A.


Corrie, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Couchman, James
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Norman


Douglas—hamilton, Lord J.
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawler, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lennox—boyd, Hon Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Farr, Jhon
LyeIl, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Marcus
Major, John


Franks, Cecil
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Galley, Roy
Marlow, Antony


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Maude, Hon Francis


Garel—jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gloodhart, Sir Philip
Mellor, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Gow lan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Griffiths, Peter (Porstm'th N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grist, lan
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Tony


Hannam,John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Harris, David
Onslow, Cranley


Harvey, Roberte
Oppenheim, Philip


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayes,J.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Matthew


Heathcoat—amory, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hickmet, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Holland, Sir Philip(Gedling)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Powley, John


Hooson, Tom
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howard, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter(Dover)


Hubbard—miles, Peter
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


lrving, Charles
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rost, Peter


Johnson—smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew






Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Terlezki, Stefan


Ryder, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


St. John—stevas, Rt Hon N.
Thornton, Malcolm Thurnham, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waddington, David


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas Speller, Tony
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watson, John


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitfield, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Martin (Fulham),
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Woodcock, Michael Yeo, Tim


Stokes, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Sumberg, David


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Carol Mather and


Temple—morris, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 270, Noes 166.

Division No. 290]
[6.56 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Tom
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, W. S.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Coombs, Simon


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Corrie, John


Biggs—davison, Sir John
Couchman, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Body, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Evennett, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brandon—bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Farr, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Favell, Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Browne, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bruinvels, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil



Freeman Roger
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Antony


Galley, Roy
Mather, Carol


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Hon Francis


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mellor, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Norris, Steven


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Philip


Harvey, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard 


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawksley, Warren
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayes, J.
Parris, Matthew


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heathcoat—amory, David
Patten, John (Oxford)


Heddle, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hickmet, Richard
Porter, Barry


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powley, John


Holt, Richard
Price, Sir David


Hooson, Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hordern, Peter
Raffan, Keith


Howard, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd—on—a)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Renton, Tim


Hubbard—miles, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Convey)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Irving, Charles
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rost, Peter


Johnson—smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kellett—bowman, Mrs Elaine
St. John—stevas, Rt Hon N.


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James A.
Scott, Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawler, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Lennox—boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas

 
Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Peter
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


LyeIl, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


MacKay, Andrew(Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Madel, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Major, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maples, John
Stokes, John






Stradling Thomas, J.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John
 

Sumberg, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Walden, George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Waller, Gary


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Terlezki, Stefan
Watson, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wheeler, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitfield, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Michael


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Waddington, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Foster, Derek


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Barnett, Guy
Freud, Clement


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Benn, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Golding, John


Benyon, William
Ground, Patrick


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Blair, Anthony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyes, Roland
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle—u—tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Campbell—savours, Dale
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carter—jones, Lewis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Clarke, Thomas
John, Brynmor


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Kilroy—silk, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(Bristol S.)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archibald


Conlan, Bernard
Knox, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craigen, J. M.
Loyden, Edward


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Martin, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Meadowcroft, Michael



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Michie, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mikardo, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Sheerman, Barry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


O'Brien, William
Skinner, Dennis


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Snape, Peter


Park, George
Spearing, Nigel


Parry, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Patchett, Terry
Stott, Roger


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pike, Peter
Torney, Tom


Prescott, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wainwright, R.


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert


Rathbone, Tim
Weetch, Ken


Redmond, M.
Winnick, David


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Richardson, Ms Jo



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, George
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

REPLACEMENT OF COUNCILLORS

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 3, line 11, after 'time', insert
from a date three months after an appointment.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take amendment No. 94, in page 3, line 14, at end insert
provided that no more than one appointment shall he so terminated in a three month period.

Mr. Straw: Clause 3 gives power to a constituent council— a district or a London borough council—'to terminate the appointment of a representative on an interim board at any time. We believe that such a power should be constrained in two ways. First, it should not be possible to terminate the appointment within three months of the original appointment. Secondly, it should not be possible for a constituent authority to terminate more than one appointment within a three—month period.
While I understand why the Government have introduced a power to terminate appointments, I do not necessarily agree with them. It is most important that, as far as possible, there should be some permanence for these people. In any event, they will be there only for 11 months. It would be wrong to have a constant merry—go—round of people having their appointments terminated if, say, they do something which does not meet the will, for the time being, of the constituent council.
I am perhaps one of the few in the Committee who has served as an indirect member of an authority. I was Islington council's representative on ILEA. It is a difficult position to be in. Those performing the function proposed in the Bill will be in even greater difficulties; they should not necessarily face the continual possibility of having their appointments terminated, as could happen under clause 3. Moreover, the attraction of termination should be constrained by providing that not more than one termination is possible within three months.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I understand the arguments for continuity put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I assure him that the Government do not envisage the constant merry—go—round that he mentioned. I know about the problems of indirectly elected members—not because I was one, but my wife was an indirectly elected member of ILEA. Therefore, I understand the problems of twin loyalties to two bodies.
The provisions are needed to ensure that party balance is maintained throughout the transitional period. That is necessary in case of changes in the political complexion of the constituent councils. Perhaps I may look back for a moment to clause 2(5) which expressly refers to making and terminating appointments to reflect the party balance. Clause 3 is therefore necessary to give effect to the party balance requirement in clause 2. Clause 3 will also help to ensure that appointees remain directly answerable for their actions to the council that appointed them and, through it, to the electorate.
Amendment No. 93 would guarantee that each appointee would serve for at least three months. The impact would be that, if the party balance in a constituent council changed, it could be up to three months before that was reflected in the transitional council.
Amendment No. 94 is even worse. In effect, it limits to three the maximum number of replacements which each constituent council could make in the entire 11 months of the transitional council. That would not allow a party balance to be maintained and, I suggest, would weaken accountability. Suppose that a party took control of a borough council and was entitled to more members on the transitional council; it could be caught by the three-months rule—or the ruling in amendment No. 94—and thereby be precluded from nominating additional members from its own party to the transitional council.
The hon. Gentleman's fears will not be realised. The amendments would frustrate the main purposes of the clause and so I must ask the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I support my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary. Plainly, the Government are trying to ensure that during the short, winding—down period the views of local authorities—the district and borough councils—are correctly reflected in the membership of the GLC and the other six authorities. If we interfere with the rights of councils, the political complexion of which might change, we should completely reverse the Government's objective.
If I might be allowed to appear in a white sheet, so to speak, a week or two ago, in a debate on the topic, I said that none of the authorities to be abolished would have a change of political complexion as a result of elected members being replaced by borough representatives who will take over the majority of their powers.
I may have been wrong about the GLC. I can hear derisive laughter, but I think that I should endure the shame of having made a mistake and confess that it appears—no one is more upset than the Government about this, if the truth be known—that there is likely to be a change of political representation at county hall, although not in the other six authorities.
7.15 pm
It is precisely because of the Government's desire to ensure that in the winding-down period the boroughs' and districts' views are fairly reflected, and that there is not

even the appearance of imposing other views, that it is essential that this degree of flexibility be applied. Therefore, I oppose the amendments.

Mr. Straw: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

FILLING OF VACANCIES

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 42, leave out
`not later than one month'
and insert 'at its first meeting'.
The purpose of the amendment is to determine the period after which the borough councils in London, and the district councils in the metropolitan county areas, would take decisions to replace people needed to fill vacancies on the county authorities. It was tabled for reasons of practicability. The fact that we had to table it suggests that yet again the Government do not understand or appreciate or have not reflected upon the practical day—to—day workings of local authorities.
It is usual practice in local authorities for there to be a six—week cycle of council meetings. It will therefore by impossible for the authorities to comply with the provisions of subsection (3). If what the Government intend happens, unless they can point us to some ancillary provision that we have not noticed, if a vacancy occurs at the relevant date as defined in subsection (4)—
the date on which the person in question ceased to be a member of the constituent council and,"—
in certain cases—
the date on which notice of the vacancy is given to the constituent council"—
an appointment has to be made within a month.
What happens if a local authority has just had its cycle council meeting? It would not normally meet again for about another five weeks. Without calling a special meeting of the council. It might be impossible to have such a meeting. The implication is that either a special meeting of the council would have to be called—which costs money because the town hall would have to be opened up and lighting and other things paid for, and there is also the inconvenience to councillors — or councils do not do what the Government are clearly determined that they should do, that is, ensure that the decision is made by the whole council.
Now that it has been clearly stated by the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and the Labour party that, in their view, the Bill is a total muddle—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Prime Minister, called it "a dog's breakfast" in the early hours of the morning—we do not want the powers to replace people when vacancies arise to be handed out of the control of the full council to a sub—committee or majority group or other less democratic and visibly accountable body.
If vacancies arise — I regret that the amendments were not proceeded with because we need to ensure that appointing authorities cannot pull people out after one meeting—they have to be filled by the council, and the convenient time to do that is at the council's first meeting after "the relevant date". I hope that the Government will


accept the strength of that argument on practical grounds today and accept our amendment or bring forward their own amendment so that the Bill can proceed in a more practical way.

Sir George Young: No one is more aware of the mechanics of local government than myself, having served on a London borough council and the GLC. I am also aware of the time scales. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance which he sought towards the end of his remarks. In a nutshell, the debate is between speed — the necessity to replace people and fill vacancies when they occur—and convenience, and to a small extent cost, if special meetings of the council have to be called to fill a vacancy. We do not envisage great use of the powers. They are necessary to replace someone who, for whatever reason, can no longer serve on a transitional council. But, as I said in reply to the previous debate, we do not envisage a merry—go—round or a constant changing of members of the transitional councils.
The point of putting a one—month time limit on the filling of casual vacancies is merely to ensure that they are filled, notified and commenced as soon as possible after they occur. The transitional councils have only 11 months to run and there will be quite a lot of work to be done in that period. Waiting for the next scheduled council meeting might mean a delay of six or seven weeks, or more, and several weeks' valuable experience for an appointee could be lost. I believe that one month will be ample time for a council to make an appointment. Indeed, I hope that most casual vacancies will be filled in considerably less time than that.
Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. We place a greater priority on speed and filling a vacancy than on the arguments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand why the Government resist the amendment, but I do not find their argument convincing. It is part of the package which adds to the administrative muddle which local councils will have to cope with. Although speed is vital, I had hoped that the Government would accept the amendment and therefore do something about limiting the number of times that vacancies will occur. However, having heard that about half an hour ago members of the other place defeated the Government on the Housing and Building Control Bill for a second time, I still have some hope the Government might be affected by the risk of being defeated again on this and many other matters. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
Amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 11, at end insert —

'Provided that any quorum so prescribed for a metropolitan county council shall include a stipulation that there shall be at least one person present from each constituent council'.
Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 13, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 14 and insert
'and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
Amendment No. 95, in page 5, line 31, at end add—
'(7) A quorum of the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council as the case may be shall include at least one elected representative from each of the constituent councils in its area and the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above and the provisions of paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the principal Act shall have effect subject to the requirement of this subsection.'.

Dr. Clark: The amendments are admittedly specialised and highly technical. Nevertheless, they are fundamentally important to the functions and working of good local government, which is what the Opposition are trying to achieve through the aegis of this Committee. To try to make good local government out of this Bill is somewhat difficult, but we are doing our best. When we see imperfections in the Bill we attempt to correct them. Nowhere is that more so than in clause 5 and in connection with the quorums of the transitional boards. At first sight, a discussion about a quorum might seem rather esoteric or academic. But we maintain that an important principle is at stake.
The point of having a quorum is an essential characteristic, or criterion, to protect minority—groups even majority—groups. It is possible to imagine that without a reasonable quorum small groups could, through various scenarios, exercise power in the name of the larger body. That is vital, and it has been recognised traditionally and conventionally in local government legislation.
As the Secretary of State knows, it is laid down in the principal Act that there must be a quorum. Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 to that Act prescribes that the quorum for meetings of principal councils should be one quarter. That is all well and good and we do not disagree with it. However, under clause 5(3) and (4) the Secretary of State can reduce by order the prescribed quorum of a metropolitan county council when he considers — I emphasise "he"—that to be necessary for the transaction of business. No limitation is placed on the power of the Secretary of State. There is no prescribed minimum below which he cannot make an order. He has no need to consult the council and there are no prescribed criteria to which he must adhere in order to determine the quorum. That will give the Secretary of State tremendous powers. They are far too great. One of our main criticisms of the Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State those tremendous powers.
We are very worried about the need to ensure that there is an adequate quorum, which is what we seek to do in this group of amendments. Amendment No. 29 goes a stage further and suggests that the quorum should include at least one representative from each metropolitan district. That is a useful protection and particularly important as much of the work of the transitional body will be—I nearly said stripping of assets—the dispersal of assets. That will involve a vast amount of money. I understand that the GLC capital fund will be about £1,000 million. it is vital that all the respective metropolitan districts feel that they are getting a fair share and that they have a quorum of sufficient size to protect their interests. It would be very


unsatisfactory if the Secretary of State decided to reduce the quorum to, say, 15, as he could easily do under the clause.
We are trying to protect the democratic freedoms of what may be a minority group. It would be a travesty if, because London is to be Conservative—controlled, a Labour borough such as Barking did not get a fair share. If one representative from each metropolitan district were necessary to make a quorum, they would have at least one sanction to prevent any unsatisfactory or unfair distribution of assets.
We may appear to be uncharitable or too critical of the Secretary of State's new power. I am sure that he will tell us that he hopes not to have to operate it. He will probably say that he hopes to operate under the present system. But the Government's record on democracy is far from happy. There has been a train of events in the past 12 months. I shall not go into them because they would be outside the scope of the amendment, but they show the drift away from the fundamental democratic values that the House has traditionally held. That is why right hon. Members from the Secretary of State's own party have told him that he is acting in an anti—democratic way and operating the biggest gerrymander in history.
We are critical and suspicious of the Secretary of State. If he can, at a stroke, change a Labour—controlled London into a Conservative—controlled London, we must protect in every way possible the functioning of any subsequent interim arrangements.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: There are circumstances, as is already known, in which we shall seek to press amendment No. 57 to a Division. It is a fall-back position that, if the amendment eloquently moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) should fall, in the last resort we should at least establish the fact that the Government can use these unfortunate powers only by an affirmative resolution of the House, and not by the mere negative procedure which the Government, like all Governments in my experience, are trying to get away with.
7.30 pm
As outlined by the hon. Member for South Shields, the power of the Secretary of State to reduce the quorum, as he would do, presumably, if he finds that there is a boycott by some political party, of the nominated councils, is degrading, and illustrates the ultimate mess in which the Government now arrive, having started on this crazy road. This is the destination of people who have set off in the wrong direction in the wrong manner, and who are thus reduced to such squalid devices.
I should like to illustrate the consequences of subsection (3), if the amendment is unfortunately not agreed to, for the metropolitan county council of west Yorkshire, in which my constituency is situated. The provisions of the Bill will already have reduced the interim west Yorkshire county council to half its traditional strength, that is, to 45 nominated members. When the plaque of county hall, which has been hoisted in Wakefield for 100 years, is hauled down, and guango hall is put up in its place, it will already be a mere half of its present size with a quorum of 11. A quorum of 11 to deal with a metropolitan county the size of west Yorkshire seems a dubiously low figure.
If there were to be a boycott by one or two larger parties, although the Liberal members have no intention of taking the matter to the lengths of boycott, strongly though they feel, the Secretary of State might have to declare— and this is difficult to believe, but it is the truth — that the administration of the county of west Yorkshire could be carried on by a meeting with a quorum of only five. The title of "quango hall" would no longer be appropriate. It would have to be hauled down, and some such title as "cosy corner" or "the nook" would have to hoisted to show that the whole of west Yorkshire was to be governed for local purposes by a mere huddle of five stooges—five nominated people, under this system.

Mr. George Park: Subsection (3) imposes no limit, and it could be one person, if so declared.

Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for carrying my argument further. I was endeavouring not to make the position even more fantastic that I consider a quorum of five would be, when one considers the great resources and responsibilities which that tiny huddle of nominated people would have. The inequity and inefficiency of a quorum of five speak for themselves, and I do not wish to labour what is manifest.
I deal next with a most important aspect of any form of government which is its image with the public, and the amount of respect and obedience that such a body commands. We have it on the authority of our great constitutional writers, and especially the great Bagehot, that it is essential for any major organ of government to have an image that makes people want to respect and to obey it. Bagehot's term was "the ceremonial part of Parliament", which in the age of television succeeds in making most citizens feel that Parliament ought to be obeyed. This is equally important in the government of a large county.
It is sometimes forgotten, when people dwell upon the fact that London is unfortunately to lose its county government, that the same is true of people in west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire. Anybody who has been brought up in the former West Riding of Yorkshire, like his forebears for nearly 100 years, has been accustomed to county government on a majestic scale.
When I was first elected a Member of Parliament, the West Riding county council, which was then the operative body, extended from the hinterland of Morecambe bay in the west to the mouth of the Humber in the east. Because of its enormous resources, and because it had rich farming country in the north, and coalmines—indeed, the centre of the British coal industry—in the south, with much manufacturing in between, it was able to recruit the most distinguished public servants. One of my great pleasures in earlier years here was to go to various Departments of state with the almost omnipotent clerk, as he was then called, of the West Riding county council, accompanied by three party leaders, all of great experience and knowledge. Those people, in my humble presence, terrified Ministers, who were changing office every year or so, and permanent secretaries alike. I felt a tremendous thrill, not to be playing any great part, but to be present when the people from my part of the country were inspiring awe and respect in the bureaucracy of Whitehall.
The West Riding went, and I shall not dwell upon that unhappy fact. In most of its place came the new counties


of west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire. They had a difficult start, but in recent years they too have built up respect, if not always agreement. West Yorkshire council, which is the one that I know better, is regarded as a body that should be listened to, and that can be helpful in knitting together the parochial manufacturing cities and towns of west Yorkshire.
In place of that respectable and acceptable form of government, for an interim period we are to have a body which could be reduced to five, four or three people, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers contained in subsection (3). Such a procedure is unacceptable to thinking people in west Yorkshire. Conservatives as much as anybody else would be offended if the county council in which they had played a considerable part over the years were reduced to such a squalid huddle.
We therefore support amendment No. 56 to leave out subsection (3). If unfortunately we do not prevail, we will want to test the opinion of the Committee on the fall-back position that, at least, there should be an affirmative resolution, provided for by our amendment No. 57.

Mr. Martin Stevens: As we move towards the conclusion of the Committee stage of this Bill, it is sad that Opposition Members should be yapping and snapping at the heels of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, trying to find areas in which to criticise points of detail. It cannot be said that the procedure of a negative resolution of the House is a squalid device. It is a time-honoured device and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was in favour of maintaining time-honoured institutions.
The hon. Gentleman tells us that in the ancient days of Alderman Foodbotham and others — who will be remembered by those who have read Beachcomber, of blessed memory — the great members of Yorkshire county council could terrify Ministers in London. The hon. Gentleman wished that that was still the case. Unfortunately, times have changed in local government. Labour Members will be quick to endorse the fact that ceremonial procedures may not always remain appropriate. It is nonsense to talk as though we shall end up with a cosy nook, or whatever.
It will not be the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if the hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not trouble to turn up to perform their public duties. No Conservative Member is suggesting that we do not want those who have been appointed to the 11-month transitional bodies to turn up. Hon. Members talk as if we were laying the foundations for some form of local government that is to last for a thousand years. But we are talking about an interim procedure for 11 months. We do not want no one to turn up and we do not want small numbers to turn up. There will be a great deal of work to do. Many of those involved will be those who will be responsible at the end of the 11-month period. To suggest that it is the Government's purpose to reduce the active membership of those temporary authorities to four or five people is absurd. One needs only to put it into words to realise that the hon. Gentleman is talking out of a part of his person that you would not allow me, Mr. Armstrong, to name.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman implied that the Liberal party might choose to boycott the interim councils. I think that he will acknowledge that I was

careful to point out that, at any rate, as far as west and south Yorkshire were concerned, Liberal members did not have the slightest intention of boycotting those interim councils, distasteful though they are.

Mr. Stevens: I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly as he made that point in his speech. I certainly did not intend to suggest anything to the contrary.

Mr. Corbyn: Is it not an honourable part of this country's political tradition that if someone violently disagrees with a course of action, it is perfectly reasonable for him to boycott a body that is established to destroy the institutions that we seek to defend?

Mr. Stevens: That is a vulgar process that has been seen more frequently of late, and it is greatly to be deprecated. All I said was that it was not the intent ion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that those nominated by their local authorities to serve on the transitional bodies should boycott them. Indeed, if they boycott them, it will not be my right hon. Friend's fault, but their own—deleted expletive—fault.
The amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seeks to ensure that any quorum of the transitional bodies should have at least one representative from each of the constituent councils. If the Committee accepted it, there, indeed, would be a ready-made lever of destruction. One would need only to hold the members of one of the constituent councils at home to bring the whole work of the transitional authority grinding to a halt. Parliament would be very foolish to give such powers to the constituent councils that nominated members of the transitional authorities. I very much hope that we shall not be so foolish as to be ensnared by that trap.
7.45 pm

Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) alluded to the fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had described the Bill as a dog's breakfast. My colleagues will find it interesting that there seems to be no real constraint on Liberal Members supporting that dog's breakfast.

Mr. Corbyn: With a bit of luck, they will eat it.

Mr. Bidwell: It seems that Liberal Members at least want to sup at the devil's table, because they have enthusiastically supported the Bill being described as a shambles. We hope that it will never see the light of day, and that is will be mangled in the other place, or by the people.
I cannot say exactly what the Labour party may wish to do. We are debating paving legislation, and the way in which it is presented reminds me of trying to build a pavement before one knows the size of the road. That is the difficulty that we are faced with. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) observed, 11 months is a short time, but it could also be a very damaging period. As he said, those involved will have an enormous amount of work to do and will have to try to decide how to transfer many of the GLC's existing powers to the boroughs.
Although I do not know what the Labour party's position will be on this issue, it is elementary that there must be a quorum. The Government should have no hesitation in conceding that, as they may end up with a bit of a shambles in the balance of political representation that they achieve.
I should point out to my hon. Friends that I have always been a bit shy when advising members of local authorities—whether they be members of the GLC or of borough, district or parish councils—what they should do in such critical situations. However, as an old shop steward in industry, I can say that if I were back there and were a councillor, I would have nothing to do with it. I would take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Those involved may have to hold a special conference to decide whether they should participate. As I observed during an earlier intervention, the bodies cannot work unless there is full hearted participation by the Labour movement and the Labour party, which is the second biggest political party in terms of numerical support. People will have different views about participation.
Incidentally, I have known the Secretary of State for many years, and knew him even before he became a Member of Parliament. He may, of course, surprise us by conceding the logic of our point. The question of whether Labour councillors and Labour-controlled boroughs will decide to participate must lay heavily on his mind. Traditionally, the Labour party has participated in any opportunity to represent the people. However, it may be decided that there has been a historic change and that extraordinary measures must be taken to defeat, in turn, the Government's extraordinary measures which are entirely undemocratic and a thorough disgrace.
Another matter that I want to get off my chest relates to participation and the logic of having a stated quorum. Labour councillors tell me that carrots are being dangled so that they will participate. I think of the issue in relation to the road ahead and the Bill which will abolish the GLC.
Have the Government already started to encourage borough officials to make overtures to various people to see whether they are interested ultimately in serving on one of the new bodies? I understand that 70 per cent. of existing GLC expenditure relates to duties which cannot be passed to the boroughs. I do not know whether that figure is correct and it may change with the circumstances.
I understand that borough officials are saying to some Labour people, "Would you be interested in serving on a quango to keep the Labour party's end up?" Since serving on a quango will be a full-time occupation a salary must be paid. Perhaps it will be settled at the level of an MP's salary. Is there any validity in what I say, or is it gossip? Some people may be attracted to participating because of the advantage that it might bring them. Such will be the heavy nature of duties when serving on a quango that it will have to be regarded as a full-time occupation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: There is no substance in the suggestion that the Government are making such approaches. It is reasonable to assume that officers and others have read the Bill and the White Paper and may well be doing some advance planning. There is no suggestion in anything said by any Minister that we are talking of altering the remuneration or expense arrangements for councillors, whether they serve on borough councils, on the joint boards or on the interim bodies. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) finds that reassuring.

Mr. Bidwell: That is an important statement because we are talking about a period of revolutionary change.
That is why the Tory party's elder statesmen are opposed to the measure and have stated their case. At a time of such revolutionary change there will be gossip and talk about what comes next. That is why many bolder councillors will not participate. That is why there must be a stated quorum before business can be done.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said that we were snapping at the Secretary of State's heels. We have not been snapping at his heels; we have been eating him for breakfast at regular intervals. His own hon. Friends have also eaten him for breakfast on so many occasions that we have lost count. If the hon. Member for Fulham seems to think that the power that the Secretary of State is trying to assume for himself is immaterial, irrelevant, superficial and unimportant, he understands nothing about local government and how it operates.
The quorum is all-important in local government. By way of a backhanded compliment I must say that whoever at Marsham street thought of including a quorum has clearly learnt something from Machiavelli. That civil servant was anticipating what might happen when the interim councils come into play. That person obviously thought that the prospects for anyone serving on one of the new bodies would be so unattractive that they would not want to have anything to do with it. I am sure that that applies to members of my party. It is therefore necessary to alter the quorum so that business can continue. It is not a question of the Secretary of State trying to win by the quality of his argument. He will always have to use manipulation to achieve results.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Much has been said by Opposition Members about the importance of democracy. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and his hon. Friends have said that it is possible that their party will boycott the new bodies. How can they argue that that is democratic? It seems to be the opposite of democracy for people to refuse to serve on lawfully established public bodies. If Labour councillors intend to boycott the transitional bodies, what alternative has my right hon. Friend but to take the steps that he is taking in relation to the quorum?

Mr. Banks: The answer is simple. Democracy gives people the right not to do something as well as to do something. It is up to the Government to make their case and to make the prospect so attractive that there will be no question of people not wishing to participate. Let us face it—the proposition being put before the Committee is an inadequate substitute for real democracy at the ballot box. It is a substitute for elections.
It is no good the hon. Member for Fulham suggesting that people who do not want to go along with these wholly undemocratic proposals are being undemocratic by refusing to co-operate. Democracy gives us the right not to go along with profoundly undemocratic measures. If the Secretary of State had seen fit to accept amendments moved by his own hon. Friends, or if he had not introduced this bastardisation of local government, we should not have had to argue this case tonight, and we should not need to fall out over the quorum.
The quorum is all-important. It is not just a question of Labour Members refusing to co-operate. I believe that out
in the real world a number of Conservative Members of local authorities will not like what they will be asked to do and will not wish to take part in the process.
The Secretary of State must tell us how small a quorum is. Where does it begin and where does it stop? One can imagine the squalid little deals that will be done to secure local government business. I have been closely involved in local government for 14 years and what is going on in the Committee now makes me sick. I am sick to death of the way that local democracy is being butchered by the Secretary of State and the Conservative party.
8 pm
The sheer hypocrisy of the talk of democracy by Conservative Members is an insult to all decent hon. Members. Local democracy is being butchered by the Government. I do not see the point of trying to argue rationally with the Secretary of State. He is not the slightest bit interested in anything that will enhance local democracy. All he is interested in is getting this squalid little Bill through to serve his political mistress.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us just how small the quorum will be. Will it be so small that it ends up just being the Secretary of State himself? That could happen. When that happens we will have reached the dictatorship that the Bill is taking us towards.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not want to follow the violence of the language of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I can deal fairly briefly with the substance of the amendments moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because the case for the Bill and the case against the amendments was made with great clarity by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), and by the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of the hon. Member for Southall. He said that he would have nothing to do with it. Although it is not a matter for him to decide how local Labour parties will operate in the interim period, whether in London or anywhere else, his advice would be that they should not participate at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) has rightly said that that is the situation for which the Government properly have to provide. As was said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West last night, if we had chosen, as a number of my hon. Friends urged, to allow existing councils to run on, he would not serve, nor would many of his friends who are members of the GLC. Therefore, precisely the same problem would arise.
Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 prescribes that the quorum will be one quarter of the principal council. In these circumstances, if a large number of the nominees of a distict or borough council were to decline not just to serve but not to turn up, the conduct of business by the transitional councils would be wholly frustrated.
It has been argued that the arrangements we are making for the transitional period will leave matters in the hands of bodies that have been described in a variety of derogatory phrases. Reference has been made to temporary quangos. These will not be quangos because they will be composed of elected councillors nominated by elected councils. Opposition Members say that these bodies will be inferior creatures carrying out important functions. That is the burden of their case. Yet when faced with the responsibility of carrying out these important
functions, it is suggested that nominated councillors will not serve or will not turn up, or that councils may be obliged by law to make the appointments. I find that a contradictory argument.
If these functions are important, as they allege, to the people of the area covered by the upper tier council, surely it follows that it must be important that those who are asked to perform the functions should feel a strong sense of duty. Of course, the vast majority will. I acknowledge at once that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that at least in Yorkshire he would envisage that no member of his party who was nominated by a council to serve on one of the interim bodies would do anything other than turn up and perform the duties to the best of his ability. I am sure that that will be the experience in the vast majority of cases. There may be a few people who will want to cut off their nose to spite their face and do a political stunt.

Mr. Corbyn: Stunt?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, it would be a stunt; it would be a sort of static demonstration. They would do a political stunt by absenting themselves from public duties which they have been asked to do. I do not believe that the vast majority of people who participate in local government would do that. Therefore, I hope the powers in these subsections of clause 5 will never have to be used.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to answer plainly, simply and clearly the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about why he is not prepared to allow elections to take place for all these authorities and why he is denying nearly one third of the population the right to vote for those who should administer their local services?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman sat through a good deal of the debate yesterday and, therefore, will have heard the speeches made from the Dispatch Box by myself and others on the earlier clauses. If he wants the answer to be repeated, it is simply that it would be absurd and not in accordance with precedent to hold elections in the course of a local government reorganisation for authorities that are shortly to disappear. That is clear. Even those of my hon. Friends who feel that we may have made the wrong choice of how to deal with the matter acknowledge that.
We have passed that and have reached the point where we are dealing with the machinery for the transitional councils. Many statements have been made in public in the press and on radio and television by councillors who have indicated that if they were called upon to serve they would not wish to do so. The hon. Member for South Shields used the word Machiavellian. That is perhaps unkind. The draftsman of the Bill has with foresight included a provision to ensure that the business of the transitional councils shall be carried on even if enough of the members refuse to serve or to turn up to ensure that there is not a statutory quorum under paragraph 6 of schedule 12 of the 1972 Act.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: May I develop the argument because it is important that the Committee should follow this?
The amendment suggests that the quorum should be 25 per cent. Given the threat that has been amply reinforced by the hon. Member for Southall, by the hon. Member for
Newham, North-West and by the hon. Member for Islington, North, all of whom have indicated that there is at least a possiblity that councillors will not turn up, the business of the interim councillors could be completely frustrated. No business could be transacted. The Government have taken the view that provision should be made to protect the public from that sort of folly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham was right when he said that the blame would lie fairly and squarely upon those who were boycotting the councils. What we are inviting the Committee to do in these paragraphs is to give the Government power to deal with this. I shall come to the point about amendment No. 57 in a moment. Subject to parliamentary safeguards, we think that the Government should have power to reduce the quorum so that the business may continue to be transacted.

Dr. David Clark: The Secretary of State is not confident of obtaining 25 per cent. support among councillors. As each council will include a number of Conservative members, that shows a lack of confidence in the legislation.
I wish to raise a serious point. The role of a Committee is to attempt to clarify the position. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it may be necessary to compel councillors by law to attend meetings. In south Yorkshire, opposition councillors will probably comprise less than one fifth of the new interim bodies. I emphasise that no decision has been taken yet, but if those Labour councillors decided not to take their place on the interim body, what would the Minister's approach be and on how small a quorum would he insist? Would he reduce the number to, say, six out of 60 to make it work?

Mr. Jenkin: If a majority of councillors refuse to participate and to operate legislation passed by the House, and given the necessity that the business of the transitional council must be carried on and that the decisions requiring affirmative support must be made, it would be necessary to lay an order to reduce the quorum to a level that would allow those who were prepared to participate to carry on the business.

Mr. Bidwell: One.

Mr. Jenkin: In theory, it could be as low as one, but in practice it would be a substantially higher figure. Through the negative resolution procedure provided in the Bill, the House can demand that the Government justify their decision on a certain figure. I emphasise that those refusing to serve would be deliberately setting out to frustrate legislation passed by the House. I do not believe that more than a tiny minority would wish to exercise their protest by making public affairs unworkable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that subsections (2) and (5) mean that councils have a duty, enforceable by law — we heard that phrase earlier—to ensure that, for the time being, the balance of parties prevailing must, as far as practical, be reflected? If one party boycotted the body, it would be possible without either legislation or order for those councils to be represented by members of other parties. We do not need to go to court or to come to the House to get county councils to carry out their business. We can use the quorum rules.

Mr. Jenkin: As we discussed earlier, when a council makes its nominations it must have regard to the party balance. It is the duty of a council to nominate and, having been nominated, if councillors refuse to serve the conduct of business could be frustrated. The Government have received signs from a number of people, reinforced by no fewer than three Opposition Members, that such a threat has substance. Therefore, we would have been seriously failing in our duty if we did not include in the Bill a measure that would enable the Committee to approve arrangements to continue the conduct of business. I recommend the Committee to reject those amendments.
The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about amendment No. 29, which would provide for a minimum of one person to be present from each constituent council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham rightly said, that would give each and every constituent council an absolute veto on the conduct of business by the interim transitional council. That could not conceivably be right. The hon. Gentleman asked how the interests of the residents of the London borough of Tower Hamlets could be safeguarded unless we were sure that a quorum consisted of at least one representative from that borough. That is exactly the position with any council in relation to any ward. A councillor does not have to be present, but if he wishes to protect the interests of those he represents he should be present, ready to speak and to vote.
If, as a matter of political protest, that person decides to stay away, it does not lie in his mouth to complain that the interests of his constituents are being neglected. If he stays away as a political stunt, he lays himself open, quite rightly, to the severest condemnation by those whose interests he was supposed to represent on the council.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting round to the real argument. The way in which such a councillor or councillors would receive their retribution from the people that they were supposed to represent would be through the ballot box, because they would not be voted in again. Because the elections are being removed, the right hon. Gentleman has superimposed himself where the ballot box used to be. He will visit retribution on the councillors by reducing the quorum. He now sees himself as a walking ballot box.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course, the hon. Gentleman serves as a member of the GLC, and he may not have too much time for the London boroughs. I am talking about councillors who have been elected to London boroughs and who will be nominated to serve, for instance, on the GLC. If those councillors are nominated but refuse to serve, they will let down their electorate. They know that retribution would usually be taken at the next election. In the meantime, the business of the transitional council must continue. There is no alternative but to provide the Secretary of State with the power to reduce the quorum to ensure that such action cannot frustrate the conduct of business.

Mr. Wainwright: Rather than have the unenviable power to impose derisory quotas for those huge units of government, did the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibility of dealing with a boycott by requiring councils to make a fresh nomination?

Mr. Jenkin: We considered that, but we are faced with only an 11-months transitional period. If a council wants its nominee to attend the body and vote, and he refuses to


do so, under the Bill it has the right to substitute another person. If we left the matter merely on the basis of a legal duty enforceable in the courts, that would be a long process. The simple step for such a short transitional period is to ensure that the body continues with its business with a smaller quorum.
I come to the question whether this should be governed by the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. We have the affirmative resolution procedure for the repeal order under clause 1 because, as we discussed yesterday, it contains provision for altering Acts of Parliament; and until the circumstances arise, one cannot know what they are and it seems proper to have the additional safeguard of the affirmative procedure.
This is an order which would implement a power which, by definition, would recently have been given to the Government by an Act of Parliament. In those circumstances, the negative procedure is appropriate. It would add to the time problems and complications if the position were otherwise. An order subject to the negative procedure takes effect at once. Under the affirmative resolution procedure, time is required because what is proposed cannot happen until the affirmative resolution has been passed. That might lead to delay and, therefore, delay in the conduct of the business of the upper tier authority. For practical reasons, and on the relative merits of the order-making power, we are right to have the negative order procedure.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the emphasis that he is placing on the need for speed in summarily despatching these matters is putting us more in the situation of Iran than the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is lapsing into unaccustomed hyperbole.

Mr. Wainwright: Because of unaccustomed acts by the Government.

Mr. Jenkin: The measures that we have taken in clause 5 to make sure that the conduct of the business can be carried on and to provide a safeguard against those who might, as a matter of political protest, refuse to participate are sensible and reasonable. The amendment would frustrate that intention, and I cannot commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 258.

Division No. 291]
[8.21 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnett, Guy 
Clarke, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Robert


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Ms Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Conlan, Bernard


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Blair, Anthony
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)





Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Meacher, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Foulkes, George
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman
Randall, Stuart


Golding, John
Redmond, M.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hoyle, Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archibald
Stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litherland, Robert
Torney, Tom


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wainwright, R.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Edward
Wareing, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Weetch, Ken


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William



Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. James Hamilton and


McTaggart, Robert
Mr. Don Dixon


Madden, Max



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Arnold, Tom
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Berry, Sir Anthony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Best, Keith
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Body, Richard
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cockeram, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Corrie, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cranborne, Viscount


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Browne, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bruinvels, Peter
Eggar, Tim






Evennett, David
Madel, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Major, John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Farr, John
Maples, John


Favell, Anthony
Marlow, Antony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol


Forth, Eric
Maude, Hon Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Franks, Cecil
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Galley, Roy
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Gregory, Conal
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Needham, Richard


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Newton, Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steven


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Philip


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Harvey, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hayes, J.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Barney
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Heddle, John
Porter, Barry


Hickmet, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powley, John


Hooson, Tom
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howard, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Irving, Charles
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rost, Peter


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James A.
Scott, Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawler, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Peter
Spencer, Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Neil
Squire, Robin


MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stanley, John


Maclean, David John
Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Waddington, David


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Walden, George


Stokes, John
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Woodcock, Michael


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 57, in clause 5, page 5, line 13, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 14 and insert
`and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Wainwright.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 251.

Division No. 292]
[8.34pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Dubs, Alfred


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St. Helens)


Barnett, Guy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Tony
Forrester, John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Foster, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Blair, Anthony
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Golding, John


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Douglas


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Janner, Hon Greville


Cohen, Harry
John, Brynmor


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) 


Craigen, J. M.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Loyden, Edward


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William






Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McNamara, Kevin
Robertson, George


McTaggart, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Madden, Max
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Martin, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Ms Clare(Ladywood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Snape, Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Wainwright, R.


Park, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert


Patchett, Terry
Weetch, Ken


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pike, Peter
Winnick, David


Prescott, John



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Archy Kirkwood




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Farr, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Sir Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Body, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galley, Roy


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'tp.'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Hannam, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayes, J.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon
Hooson, Tom


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Corrie, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Den
Hunter, Andrew


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas



Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Convey)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'oon' W)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rost, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kilfedder, James A.
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatharm)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


LyelI, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spencer, Derek


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maclean, David John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Squire, Robin


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, John


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (N Hertcdshire)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Merchant, Piers
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Terlezki, Stefan


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steven
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Philip
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waddington, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Parris, Matthew
Walden, George


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Watson, John


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Porter, Barry
Wheeler, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Whitfield, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Powley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Proctor, K. Harvey
Woodcock, Michael


Raffan, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSION.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Stan Crowther): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 81, in page 6, line 10, leave out from 'commission' to end of line 13.
No. 80, in page 6, line 14, leave out
'and of a relevant authority'
No. 84, in page 6, line 16, at end insert—
'(2B) No direction under subsection (2) above may be given by the Secretary of State until he has consulted the commission or a relevant authority or bodies representative of staff employed by a relevant authority as the case may be, as to its proposed terms.'.

Mr. Fraser: Clause 6 superficially, like other local government legislation, recognises the upheavals that are likely to be experienced by local government staff because of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the reallocation of functions. When the Government finally make a judgment about their plans and bring legislation before the House to map out the detail of their proposals, I suspect that there will be more upheavals than usual. This is a more fundamental matter than other forms of organisation, and there will be many more bodies than usual to which local authority staff will be assigned if they find a job in the successor authorities. There will be no savings because of that. If anyone asserted confidently that there would be savings, that would be defamatory of NALGO, to say the very least.
The Government properly provide for a staff commission to look at the problems of those who will face a considerable upheaval when the full legislation is passed. I understand that the Government intend, almost immediately, to set up a staff advisory committee, in advance of the passage of this legislation. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary were willing to announce the name of the chairman and the first appointees of the advisory committee.
The precedent that is found in other legislation for having a staff commission is only apparent, because in all other legislation authorities have not been abolished. Elections have not previously been abolished; they have merely been deferred. This is the first time that the reorganisation of local government has involved a paving Bill which is being used to set up a staff commission. In every other case, there has been full-blown legislation. It is proper in those circumstances to have a staff commission working hand in hand with a programme for reorganisation. There is no precedent for having a staff commission, as provided in the terms of clause 6, in advance of the House approving any detailed plans — the House has never approved the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities" —and in advance of any detailed legislation providing for the allocation of functions of the abolished GLC and metropolitan counties.
The trouble with much of the Bill is that it is putting the cart before the horse. A more appropriate expression might be that it is putting the guillotine before the tumbrel.
We object to the terms of the establishment of the staff commission because it anticipates legislation that the House has not seen and certainly has not approved.
We should examine the proposed establishment of the staff commission in the context of cuts that the Government intend to achieve. Clause 6 talks about safeguarding the interests of the staff and arrangements for the recruitment of staff. The words are misleading in the context of what the Government must intend. Whether they achieve it or not is another matter.
Behind the Government's proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties — apart from the malice and the opposition to authorities which have largely been controlled by Labour—lies the Government's intention to sack people. I doubt whether the Government will achieve their intention. There is little point in the allegations of savings, efficiencies and economies being propounded by the Government and their supporters unless behind that allegation of a saving of money are mass sackings and redundancies. There is no way in which the Government will save money on the abolition of the authorities and the reallocation of functions unless the functions are reduced, staff are sacked and people are put on the dole.
Clause 6 is not about safeguarding staff. It is about the establishment of a staff commission which is a preliminary guillotine for thousands of people who have devoted their lives to local government. That is the intention behind the clause.
If the Secretary of State is to save any money, he will have to put men and women out of work when the constraints on the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts will, under ratecapping, be greater than ever. We shall strongly oppose that and we do not believe that the intention will succeed. I am sure that the Government intend the same ruthless decimation of local government manpower that they brought about in private industry.
What lies behind the Bill in terms of staff is a disreputable and discreditable formula. The intention is to do to municipalities what has been done to private industry.
I shall deal with the details of the amendments. Amendment No. 79 would remove, in its entirety, subsection (2). It allows the Secretary of State to give directions, not just to the staff commission which is his creation, but to "any relevant authority". "Any relevant authority" for these purposes is not just the local authorities that are to be abolished—the GLC and the six metropolitan counties; it is any statutory board set up and, for the purpose of giving directions on the advice of the staff commission, comprises all the London boroughs and all the metropolitan districts within the area of the present metropolitan counties.
Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to give a direction, for instance, to a London borough. He could go along to the London borough of Lambeth and say, "On the advice of my staff commission which I have appointed, staffed and made up, I am compelling you to stop all recruitment of staff in anticipation of the transfer of staff from the GLC". That is within the remit of subsection (2). The Secretary of State could also require the metropolitan countries and the GLC to cease their staff recruitment. He could alter the way in which their establishments are founded. Those are all within the power of the Secretary of State once subsection (2) is passed. That is why in amendment No. 79 we seek to delete it.
It might be possible to stop programmes if, for instance, the GLC or the London boroughs continued with their equal opportunity programmes in respect of black minorities and women in London, which involve the recruitment or the deployment of staff in a way that might seem to the staff commission inconsistent with their subsequent transfer to the London boroughs.
I admire the GLC for many things, but if there is one thing in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that has shone through about the practices at country hall, it is the confidence that the council has given to the black minority of London. Through its employment policies for blacks, ethnic minorities and women, the GLC has asserted not just by word but by practice that this is an equal opportunity capital.
There are powers — I am not suggesting that they would not be used simply to block an equal opportunity programme—which could be used to interfere with the judgment of the GLC or any other relevant authority, if the Minister thought, on the advice of the staff commission, that those programmes were inconsistent with his future, but so far unpublished, plans for the reallocation of staff to other relevant authorities. Amendment No. 79 prevents the Secretary of State giving that kind of direction, which I think is a monstrous power to have in anticipation of any published plans.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are more restricted. They seek to put the whole of the cost of the staff commission on to central Government, and no part of it on to a relevant local authority. How can the Minister justify coming to the House of Commons with a Bill that abolishes elections, and provides for a staff commission that will largely supervise—if he has his way—redundancies, and puts the cost of that Government lunacy upon the backs of the ratepayers of London and the metropolitan districts? If he wants to have a staff commission and to anticipate the main legislation, let the Department of the Environment bear the cost and put its money where its mouth is, when there will be a more stringent control of local government expenditure than ever before.
Amendment No. 84 deals with another part of subsection (2) which, as drafted, will give the Secretary of State a power of direction which is unqualified by the need to seek any advice from local government interests before issuing such a direction. There is in effect an unfettered power to order a local authority to comply with staff commission requests and advice. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult local authority associations and trade unions before issuing any such direction. We believe that that is only a refinement of clause 6. The establishment of a staff commission, in the context of a proposed or asserted manpower saving of, I think, a minimum calculation by the Government of about 9,000 staff, is an unacceptable prejudgment and assumption of power by the Secretary of State in the absence of the full Bill and any approval of the plans by the House of Commons. We shall vote to reject that tonight.

Mr. Corbyn: I strongly support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has said. I speak as an hon. Member who is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. I have spent seven years as an organiser for that union within the GLC and ILEA. For some of that time I was secretary of the trade

union joint negotiating committee for manual workers, which represented some 20,000 manual workers in those authorities.
The fact that there is only one Conservative Member present now shows either that all their supporters have deserted the Government's sinking ship or their contempt for the people whose jobs they are about to destroy by this disgraceful, tawdry Bill that they are forcing through the House. The relationship of reorganisation of local government to the aspirations of thousands of people who have given many years of dedicated service to the community at all levels and grades deserves the fullest consideration of the Committee, but it is not getting it from Conservative Members if the attendance is anything to go by.
The employment of people in local government spans all ages and all types of jobs and is not just confined to white collar workers in offices, who are the people who normally get lambasted by the gutter press day in. day out, about their inefficiencies or otherwise. The employment also includes a large number of part-time workers, for the most part women, who undertake cleaning and catering duties, who work in parks, gardens, recreational facilities and all such places. They will be looking closely at what is proposed by the Bill because they believe, and I am sure that they are right, that if the GLC is abolished, as is the Government's intention, their jobs will be at stake., and they have a great deal to be worried about. That is why these amendments are particularly important.
9 pm
Amendment No. 79 is perhaps the most important. It deletes the powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to direct a staff commission as to its policy. to direct local councils to furnish information to the commission and a number of other powers. I have had experience of staff commissions in previous incarnations, for example when the housing facilities of the GLC were transferred to the boroughs. I do not pretend that the operation of that particular staff commission was a satisfactory arrangement. It was not, and there were many objections to it. However, there is something fundamentally different about the staff commission proposed in this clause because it does not have the role of overseeing the smooth transfer of employment and the guaranteeing of jobs or working conditions, or preserving employment — it does the opposite. The Bill sets up a staff commission that can be nothing more than a toy in the hands of the Secretary of State, and it is to that aspect that I shall refer.
Through this clause, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct the staff commission. If he has this power, what guarantees have employees of any of the MCCs or of the GLC for their jobs? We know that the Government have an obsession with privatising employment that knows no tomorrow, and an obsession with market forces. Market forces for the lowest paid manual workers in local government mean the annual sale of wages to the lowest bidder. We have seen what has happened to health services when this has been introduced, and we have seen what happened in Wandsworth council when privatisation came in. There have been reduced wages, worsened working conditions and jobs lost. That is what is at stake with this mealy-mouthed clause. There is a sinister intention of a massive destruction of staff while there is no elected authority to which trade unions can go to seek protection for their members.

Mr. Cowans: Will my hon. Friend direct his attention to a particular point? We have heard ad nauseam about the alleged savings that will be made, although we have had no evidence. Even without this clause, the Secretary of State has direct control over the staff commission. Is this how he will justify the saving of money, with the loss of people's jobs and the slashing of services? The staff commission cannot do any good unless it is entirely independent. Perhaps my hon. Friend will dwell on this because it is of vital importance to the people.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Government can save money by the introduction of the Bill and later the abolition of the MCCs and the GLC, through the cancelling of the elections, and we have been told how much it costs to print ballot papers. Money will be saved by not printing them and therefore by taking away people's right to vote.
However, the Government have not told us how many people will be forced on to the dole queue by the legislation, people who are today working in the GLC parks, who work providing meals at county hall staff restaurants, who are working in staff nurseries, are cleaning buildings, working in refuse transfer stations, at the Thames barrier, on the Woolwich ferry—working in so many valuable ways to make London a better and safer place to live. How many of those people in six months' time will be queueing up for the miserable handouts at the dole queue? That is what the Government have in mind for them.

Mr. Eric Deakins: There is another way in which the Government could save money when the staff commission is set up. They could increase pressure on local authorities in the GLC area and the metropolitan countries to privatise as fast as possible local authority services. That may force down wage rates and conditions and terms of employment in local authority departments that are trying to compete to save jobs. The Minister would then direct the staff commission to tell its staff that if they do not accept the jobs available at worse terms and conditions than at present, they will not merely be made redundant, but will lose any claim to redundancy pay because they have refused the offer of alternative jobs.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the Committee's attention to another aspect of the multi-faceted, sinister purpose of the clause.
The previous staff commission, which dealt with the transfer of housing department staff from the GLC to the borough councils, was specific about protecting wages, continuity of service and conditions of employment to those who were formerly employed by the GLC and had been transferred to the London borough councils. Those conditions were protected even against the attitudes of the Westminster and the Kensington and Chelsea councils, which sought to diminish wages. It will be easy for the Government to say that if staff who were transferred to a different employer do not accept the new conditions or the offer of a job with a private contracting firm, they will lose their rights to redundancy payments, appearances at industrial tribunals and continuity of service. They will lose all that and yet be asked to accept a reduction in wages.
I could draw many parallels on the effects of privatisation on working conditions. There is at present an issue in the Health Service, which has been debated in the

House and which I shall continue to mention until justice is done. Crothalls is a contract cleaning company and has a contract at the Barking general hospital. It employed its workers at National Health Service rates of pay. This year Crothalls again won the contract to clean the hospitals, but the workers were asked to accept a 41 per cent. cut in wages.

The Chairman: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman believes that the point is relevant to the amendment, but it does not seem relevant to me. The debate is about local government, and I do not see how a Health Service issue has any bearing on the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that some people may think that I am straying from the point, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for drawing my attention to that. However, I was not. Crothalls is a subsidiary of a larger firm that has contracts with Wandsworth council and seeks to gain contracts with the GLC and other councils. Workers employed by the GLC and the metropolitan counties can ask their employers through their trade unions for a guarantee that their jobs are secure, and will not be subject to the annual sale to the bidder who pays the lowest wages. Instead, they have a guarantee of continuity of employment. When the elections are abolished and a Conservative-controlled quango takes over the employment of the 20,000 people now employed by the GLC, what protection will they have? What will happen to the guarantees of collective bargaining and of all those conditions that were successfully negotiated with the GLC and metropolitan councils? That is what is serious about this part of this nasty Bill.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell the House that the terms of reference of the staff commission will guarantee continuity of employment and present conditions of employment, and that they will not open the door to privatisation merchants to enter and pillage the working conditions of many people, who have given many years of loyal service to the GLC and metropolitan counties.
The power of direction that the Secretary of State is taking upon himself is very serious. Employees must know who their employer is. If and when the transfer takes place and a quango is established to run the affairs of the GLC and the metropolitan countries, and it decides that it does not like the existing staff code or the purple or buff books—all the products of collective bargaining—to whom can the trade unions appeal? Do they appeal to the quango appointed by the Minister or to the Minister? Will the Minister become their employer? If so, what will be his attitude towards staffing policies?
I raise these matters not because I wish to indulge in scaremongering — quite the opposite — but because thousands of local authority employees work loyally and suffer much abuse from Ministers, Conservative Members and the press, yet they continue to provide a good service. They must know who their future employer will be. Many people in London are worried about the future of the services that they presently receive from the GLC. What about the staff? Is this an unsubtle way of handing a great deal of public money, after a couple of votes in the House, through the hands of a quango straight into the pockets and bank accounts of the private enterprise merchants? Are not the Government trying to hand over profits to Pritchards,


Grandmet and all the contract cleaning companies which day by day are demanding a bigger slice of the cake but are giving lower wages to their employees?

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an element of political corruption in this, since many of the companies to which he referred and which stand to gain from such contracts donate funds directly to the Conservative party?

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to deal with that matter, because I believe that there must be the highest probity in public life. I am proud to stand here and say that I am a Member sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. I make no effort to hide it because I am proud of my union. However, many hon. Members have experience of private contract cleaning companies, hold directorships in them and seek to promote their interests. We need to know whether the Government intend to make life a little easier for the contract cleaning companies, especially those which donated so heavily to last year's Conservative election campaign. We must know the truth tonight.
Democracy means that people have a right to elect members of a public authority. It also means that the people employed by those authorities must know what their future is and who their employers will be as changes occur. I hope that the Committee will support our amendment in recognition of the valuable work done by local authority employees and in recognition of the fact that such employees often receive low wages, work in difficult conditions and are some of the most vulnerable people in society. They are often part-time women workers. The majority of the lowest paid come from ethnic minority communities. They will be thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment as the privateers move in and try to take over the services. That is what makes the clause so serious, and I urge the Committee to support the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The most recent figure of the number of people who are affected by clause 6 is that given by the Government in the White Paper of 120,000 full-time employees. In addition to that, a further 70,000 people are engaged in police forces and in public transport in the metropolitan counties who could well be affected by proposals of the staff commission. Again, that figure is more or less accurate and is, I think, accepted on both sides of the Committee.
We share the objection outlined by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in moving the amendment, which we clearly and positively support. Our fundamental objection is that here we have yet again an example of the cart coming before the horse—a proposal that gives the Secretary of State power to do something which, as I understand it, is not even constrained by the substantive Bill, which we have not yet seen, which will contain all the details.
Not only are we proceeding in the wrong order but we are giving the Secretary of State the power to tell the metropolitan counties, the GLC and the other authorities, which will in part be responsible for taking on employees, exactly what they may do. It is another open-ended commitment that is not circumscribed by the Bill and

which allows unparalleled interference by Government in the staffing and the plans for future staffing of local government. I can think of no similar example.
It must be clear that the Government intend to lay people off. There will not be natural wastage. That is made clear in the White Paper, which has that phenomenally indicative title "Streamlining the Cities". It immediately points to the fact that in streamlining the six areas of Britain that we are talking about we shall be shedding what the Government regard as surplus employees. Chapter 4 says:
the Government are determined to ensure that reorganisation should result in greater value for money and reduced pressure on ratepayers.
It goes on to say that the Government
recognise that the possibility of compulsory redundancy cannot be ruled out.
We have always taken the view that some local authorities may well be over-staffed and some may be under-staffed. But clearly it should be for electors to decide. That is the theme running through every amendment to the Bill. The electorate should decide how much of their money should be spent on the staffing of the bodies that provide the services that they use day by day.
When there is a transition—that is what clause 6 is talking about—the amendments seek to limit the way in which the Government can interfere with that process. I have no doubt that, left to themselves, the borough authorities and district councils, the GLC and metropolitan countries — not all of which are Labour-controlled, because in some of them no party has overall control, or else the Conservatives or the alliance have control—would, in the event of their having to have a smaller work force, seek to do that by way of natural wastage, not compulsory redundancies.
If clause 6 is not amended we shall be giving the Secretary of State the power to take unilateral action to issue directions saying, "You will act in this way". That is completely unsatisfactory.
The Government have presided over the phenomenal unemployment that we have. Many people have their own certainty of work in the public services, for which we are all grateful and for which all of us regularly have a considerable need. They provide transport to and from work and services around where we live. It should be left to an independent staff commission to stand up to the Government and issue independent proposals.
If passed, the amendments would succeed in at least giving one body the opportunity to speak with an independent voice and to produce the sort of independent evidence that hon. Members have been seeking from the Government as to costs and savings by the setting up of a Royal Commission or some other body—a proposal that was defeated at about 11 o'clock last night. That is the sort of independence that the commission should have. The Bill will circumscribe that independence.
The tragedy is that the Government seem determined to interfere at every possible level. They should reconsider that. The officials in the Departments of state are already grossly overworked in trying to take on responsibility for local government. Parliament too is overworked, the Government having given it responsibility for interfering in local government, which is not why we were elected. The power of Government Ministers should not be untrammelled.
We object to the unamended clause. Full support is given by the Liberal Benches for the guarantee that a commission will be able to stand up for the interests of those now employed in the public service. We believe that the proposals to plan for the handing over of employment and jobs to boards and other authorities need more time for consideration. We cannot suddenly shift people, as the Government seem determined to do, from one service to another if a high level of service is to be sustained.
On behalf of the large number of electors employed in the public service in London and in the six metropolitan areas who sent us to Parliament, we ask the Government to lay off, and to allow the authorities to negotiate between themselves, with the advice of the commission, the best way to provide for the future employment of those people in public service.
We therefore ask the Committee to reject the Government's clause, or to accept it only if it is amended as suggested by Labour Members.

Mr. Park: I have listened to considerable parts of the debate, and I suppose that, within the crazy logic of the Bill, these consequential proposals make some sense. Having enacted previous legislation to control councils, and to take away the rights of councillors, and of the people whom they represent, the Government now seek almost dictatorial powers to make the cost savings which are said to be one of the main aims of abolishing the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. To say that the intention is to safeguard the interests of staff is but one more hypocrisy along the road to destroying local democracy, and putting more people on the dole. In the process, the Secretary of State has displayed a considerable contempt for Parliament, and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) was even more prophetic than he knew.

Mr. Waldegrave: There has been widespread support for the early establishment of a staff commission. In describing the role that we foresee for it, I hope that I can allay some of the worries expressed in the debate.
If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was not scaremongering, I should like to see him when he is mongering a good scare, because I thought that he was trying to raise a number of bogey-men about which it is not necessary to worry. That is not to deny that one objective of the measure which divides the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that there are savings in the superstructure of local authorities in particular. This is the other side of the argument put forward on earlier parts of the Bill in which it was said that no savings were to be found. If no savings were to be found, some of the worries expressed by hon. Members would not be real. However, we do seek savings of manpower by the change. However, the staff commission is not the instrument through which that objective can be met.

Mr. Tony Banks: Although there is no very substantial evidence for it, the figure of 9,000 for the number of jobs saved has been bandied around. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that adding 9,000 people to the dole queue would cost the Exchequer about —45 million per annum, through, for example, unemployment benefit, social security payments and lost tax? Is the hon.

Gentleman balancing those staff savings against the net cost to the Exchequer? If so, I frankly do not know how he has come up with a saving.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman seeks to widen the debate. Of course, he has made several assumptions about people not obtaining other jobs, the level of benefits and so on. Not even the Labour party, or the hon. Gentleman's wing of it, believes that governmental institutions should be kept in existence simply to provide jobs. They should be kept in existence to provide services at the right cost. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would argue against ways of carrying out services more adequately and efficiently.
I shall try to describe how we see the role of the staff commission and why we have proposed it being set up earlier than the main Bill. If we had left it until the main Bill, it could not have been set up as a statutory body until, I suppose, the summer or autumn of 1985. That would be too late to begin effectively to protect the interests of the staff. We therefore intend, by convention, to set it up as an advisory committee as soon as possible after the Second Reading of the Bill. It will be formally constituted as a statutory body after enactment of the Bill, but I do not think that that prejudges the principle of abolition, as the staff commission will not begin its work in earnest until Parliament has settled the principle on Second Reading of the main Bill. Until then, the commission will make its plans, will make contact with authorities and staff representatives, and will ensure that no one tries to jump the gun.
The staff commission will have similar responsibilities to the staff commissions set up to deal with earlier reorganisations, especially the 1965 London reorganisation and the 1974 local government reorganisation. It will look after the interests of staff affected by abolition and will see that no successor authorities try to corner the market in the best staff. It will oversee the recruiting activities of the successor authorities.

Mr. Corbyn: Within the staff commission's terms of reference, first in its advisory capacity and then in its full capacity, will its priority be the protection of the existing levels of payment and conditions of service?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, I cannot guarantee that. Those are matters for the staff commission to advise on. It would obviously be quite wrong for me to give such a commitment. However, I can give the commitment that it will operate a ring-fencing system to ensure that the GLC and metropolitan county council staff have the first opportunity to apply for jobs with the successor bodies. Such ring-fencing has applied in earlier reorganisations. It is an arrangement to restrict the range of staff to whom a job or groups of jobs can, in the first instance, be advertised. In this exercise it means giving the GLC and metropolitan county council staff the first opportunity to apply for new posts with the successor bodies. It does not require the successor authorities to take on particular staff, but it means that the valuable knowledge and expertise of many GLC and metropolitan county council staff will not be lost unnecessarily. The staff commission will advise on the extent and nature of the ring fence.

Mr. John Fraser: A moment ago I thought that the Minister said that he would announce the names of those


appointed to the advisory committee after Second Reading. I may have misheard him, but we have had the Second Reading of this Bill, so can we have the names?

Mr. Waldegrave: I did not say that. I did not say anything about announcing the names. We cannot announce the names tonight, but we shall want to do so soon. Those involved will obviously have to be people of the same sort of stature and independence as those who have served on previous staff commissions.
The amendments all seek, in various ways and to various extents, to remove or disable the Secretary of State's power to make directions under clause 6(2). It may be of help if I make clear the reasons for including such a power. This provision follows exactly the precedent set in earlier reorganisations.
9.30 pm
I hope and expect that the commission will work largely by laying down general principles, and then, by influence and persuasion, that it will secure the free acceptance of these principles by the parties concerned. However, some degree of enforcement may be needed, and the choice lies between giving a power of direction to the commission and reserving such a power to the Secretary of State to use on the recommendation of the commission. We do not wish to jeopardise the commission's essential role as an advisory body working by encouragement and persuasion. The subsection therefore reserves the power to the Secretary of State.
We see the exercise of this power as something of a last resort. Nevertheless, it is necessary if the interests of staff are to be fully safeguarded. Amendment No. 79 removes the power altogether. Amendment No. 80 has virtually the same effect by removing the duty on relevant authorities to comply with any such direction. The net result would be a tiger with no teeth: without that threat of a power of direction, authorities would be free to accept or ignore the commission's advice as it suited them. That cannot be in the interests of the staff.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the staff commission, as envisaged by the Minister, respect free collective bargaining and the rights of organised labour and trade unions? In the event of a dispute between a trade union representing its members and the staff commission, what appellate body will be able to hear and resolve that dispute?

Mr. Waldegrave: The commission will be not a negotiating or employing body, but an advisory body. The precedents exist. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has experience of local government and he will know how the staff commissions worked on the two previous occasions.

Mr. Corbyn: Who will be the employers?

Mr. Waldegrave: The employers will be the employers. The staff commission will not be an employer but an adviser and persuader which will see that the reasonable interests of the staff are safeguarded.

Mr. Corbyn: When elections to the metropolitan counties and the GLC cease to be held and an interim administration is established the staff commission will seek to guide and advise on the transfer of staff to other places. At that stage who will be the employer? Will each employee be given guaranteed continuity of service

between their employment with the met counties or the GLC and the quango or future authority which might employ them?

Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot say that any employee will have guaranteed continuity of service. The ring-fencing will ensure that any staff laid off because an authority ceases to exist will have the first shot at comparable jobs available elsewhere. I cannot give the guarantee for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the employment be continuous?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is exactly the type of issue on which the commission will advise us and about which discussions must take place with the trade unions and others. For those reasons we need the staff commission in place as soon as possible. It must comprise people of weight, distinction and expertise who can bring to us their advice soon enough to help the staff.
Amendment No. 84 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with relevant authorities on the proposed terms of any direction before he could make it. But since a direction would normally be necessary only because the relevant body had refused to be co-operative or reasonable, one cannot help but wonder what point there would be in such consultations — unless it was a deliberate attempt to delay and frustrate the commission's efforts on behalf of staff. There is of course nothing in the subsection as it stands to prevent such consultation should it seem worthwhile.
Amendment No. 81 removes a perfectly fair provision. The Bill, under subsection (3) of clause 6, provides for the Exchequer to bear the whole of the cost of the commission's main activities. Subsection (2), again in accordance with precedent, merely empowers the Secretary of State—the power is discretionary—to give directions to the abolition councils and lower tier councils about the payment of any expenses incurred by the commission as a result of special activities or extra work undertaken at the request of these authorities. This is entirely equitable and would ensure that the commission was not inundated with spurious or ill—conceived requests to undertake work which would merely delay its main tasks.
There is nothing new in subsection (2) of clause 6. It is a tried and tested formula. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has confirmed two things that the Bill will not do: it is not about providing public services and it is not about adding to the efficiency of local government. It is about unemployment, sacking and redundancy and it follows the pedigree of measures to deal with National Health Service workers and private workers——

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to come once more to the Dispatch Box to tell us the estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost in each of the metropolitan counties and in the GLC, what grade of jobs the Government seek to destroy and whether or not there is an intention to promote privatisation of local authority services during the interim period when the quangos are in operation and are controlling staff interests? The Minister has failed to answer these points.

Fraser: One must admire the frankness of the Minister in saying that this is about saving money on jobs; that is how he put it to us. He should answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who has considerable experience in these matters, both as a trade union official and as a councillor. The Minister should tell us whether the Government propose, before any substantive legislation is brought before us, to direct local authorities to engage in privatisation schemes or in tendering, which is inevitably a form of privatisation, in anticipation of the main legislation. The points made by my hon. Friend are extremely important and the Minister should answer them.
It has been made abundantly clear that to achieve their objectives the Government will have no hesitation in giving directions not just to the staff commission but to the local authorities. If they set up a staff commission to be the midwife of their redundancy programme, I can understand that their appointees would be subject to direction from the Department of the Environment. I do not agree with it but I can understand that there is a certain logic that they should be able to instruct the assistant executioner about how to go about the business. What I find wholly objectionable is including in the Bill a power to give a direction not just to the commission but to the local authorities as well about freezing staff, keeping posts vacant and so on at a time when there will be other constraints upon what local authorities can do.
All our worst fears have been confirmed by what the Minister has said. I am sure that my hon. Friends and perhaps even a few Tory Members will want to divide on the amendment to show their disgust at the proposals contained in the clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 259.

Division No. 293]
[9.37pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Craigen, J. M.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Guy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Barron, Kevin
Deakins, Eric


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Donald


Benn, Tony
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blair, Anthony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (DTmline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Robert
Godman, Dr Norman


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cohen, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Heller, Eric S.


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)



Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Park, George


Hoyle, Douglas
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Prescott, John


John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Redmond, M.


Kirkwood, Archibald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lamond, James
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, J. W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Loyden, Edward
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Hugh
Sheerman, Barry


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McTaggart, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maxton, John
Torney, Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, R.


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert


Meadowcroft, Michael
Winnick, David


Mikardo, Ian



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Allen McKay




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Corrie, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
du Cann, Rt Hon


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dunn, Robert


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Body, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Farr, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Freeman, Roger


Browne, John
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Buck, Sir Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bulmer, Esmond
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ground, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hanley, Jeremy


Cockeram, Eric
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David






Harvey, Robert
MacGregor, John


Haselhurst, Alan
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maclean, David John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Madel, David


Hawksley, Warren
Major, John


Hayes, J.
Malins, Humfrey


Hayhoe, Barney
Maples, John


Heddle, John
Marlow, Antony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hind, Kenneth
Mates, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Maude, Hon Francis


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hooson, Tom
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hordern, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Howard, Michael
Mellor, David


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Merchant, Piers


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hunter, Andrew
Montgomery, Fergus


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Moore, John


Jackson, Robert
Morries, M.(N'thampton, S)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


John, Brynmor
Moynihan, Hon C.


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Needham, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Nelson, Anthony


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Neubert, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Key, Robert
Norris, Steven


Kilfedder, James A.
Onslow, Cranley


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Ottaway, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lamont, Norman
Parris, Matthew


Latham, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Pawsey, James


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Porter, Barry


Lightbown, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lilley, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Powley, John


Lord, Michael
Price, Sir David


Lyell, Nicholas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Macfarlane, Neil
Raffan, Keith



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stokes, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Renton, Tim
Sumberg, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Terlezki, Stefan


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Scott, Nicholas
 Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spencer, Derek
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Whitfield, John


Spicer, Michael (S Words)
Wiggin, Jerry


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, John
Woodcock, Michael


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Mr. Robert Boscawen

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 518), dated 9th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th April be annulled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take motion 3 on the Order Paper:

Mr. Meacher: The Opposition are praying against the regulations for three basic reasons. First, we wish to protest at yet another example of the Government's niggardliness in going out of their way to prevent some of the poorest in our society from receiving just a few more pounds to which the Government's social security commissioners had ruled they were entitled. Secondly, we protest at the Government's high-handed disregard of the Social Security Advisory Committee, an independent appeals system, and all the conventions of parliamentary authority. Thirdly, we wish to protest at the manner in which Ministers are now shown to have misled the House and at the way in which the DHSS can interpret the law as it sees fit and blandly alter the law without redress or compensation when found to have applied the law incorrectly.
We are not complaining about the substance of the regulations, as I should be the first to agree that it is relatively minor. We are complaining about the flouting of principles in the way in which welfare law is increasingly being administered under the Government.
A tribunal of commissioners upheld the argument advanced by the Child Poverty Action Group that holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice each had to be taken into account for supplementary benefit purposes from the date that each became payable. The effect of the ruling was that in most instances payments would have to be taken into account concurrently rather than consecutively, thus enabling an unemployed person to qualify for supplementary benefit sooner.
The Government have introduced an amendment in the regulations to make lawful the DHSS practice of counting holiday pay and pay in lieu consecutively. Their aim is to exclude a person from entitlement to supplementary benefit for longer. Secondly, a social security commissioner confirmed that the Department had acted unlawfully in November 1981 in inserting an amendment in a set of regulations which were laid before the House as merely consolidating regulations. That amendment took away the right of single people to a grant if they were in need of a cooker or heater on moving into new accommodation. The amending regulations will reintroduce that provision.
The Government's swift action to legalise departmental practice by passing legislation without consultation or debate is exactly the same as shown last November when an earlier victory of the citizens rights office of the Child Poverty Action Group was overturned. We debated that matter. On that occasion, a tribunal of commissioners

ruled that a single payment could be made for medical needs, but, within days, the Government passed amendments nullifying the decision.
Those three cases starkly reveal the length to which the Government will go to stop people on the poverty line from receiving even the few minimal extra payments to which they are legally entitled while at the same time the Government stuff the mouths of the rich with gold.
Two months ago, in his Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished the unearned income surcharge. That was a tax, as hon. Members know, affecting only those persons with incomes each year of more than £7,100 from stocks and shares or other investment. In other words, I suspect that only those with share capital of over £100,000 were liable to that tax. Probably only the richest 1 per cent. of people in this country were recipients of that massive tax hand-out, worth to each an average of £1,300.
The same Government who took those measures are determined to rub people's noses in their poverty. Apparently, even when the Government's DHSS appointed bodies and officials grant those people a handful more the Government rush with great alacrity to put a stop to it immediately. If one wanted a symbol of the meanness towards the poor, which is so characteristic of this Administration — far more than previous Tory Administrations—surely these regulations are it.
The Government have been so determined to take away those minuscule gains — I should be the first to recognise that we are talking about a minuscule gain—that they have trodden on every convention of parliamentary government in their gadarene rush to bring about that result. In both cases, the Government have changed the rules without any normal period of consultation with their own advisory body, the Social Security Advisory Committee. Under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 the normal consultation procedure can be dropped only when the matter is certified by the Minister as being urgent. The only urgency involved in these cases is the Government's desire to avoid giving help to some of the poorest people in our community, as they have, in effect, been ordered to do by the commissioners.
The Opposition consider this to be an abuse of the rules, betraying an attitude of scant regard and perhaps contempt towards the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is not difficult to see why the Government are doing that. The Social Security Advisory Committee has not turned out to be the malleable and acquiescent body that it was intended to be when the Government abolished the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
The advisory committee's critical attitude to Government policy on benefits is best exemplified by the recent drubbing it gave Ministers on their plans to cut housing benefits. Perhaps that is why the Government set up a completely different body to carry out the review on supplementary benefits, a review chaired, almost without precedent, by Ministers. Presumably this time the Government will take no chances. The She-who-must-beobeyed intolerance of dissent is, regrettably, beginning to find echoes even at the Elephant and Castle.
The Government are being equally dismissive about the appeals system. Its independence is fast becoming something of a mockery. While Ministers pay lip service to the independence of the social security commissioners, it appears from the evidence of these cases that the commissioners are only allowed to make decisions on supplementary benefit which are favourable to the


Department of Health and Social Security. Otherwise, the Department steps in immediately and changes the rules. One wonders why one has an appeals system in those circumstances.
Another aspect which I find worrying is the speed at which the Government have moved to quash the commissioners' decisions which extend claimants' rights which has to be contrasted with their slowness in overturning commissioners' decisions which diminish claimants' rights.
In 1981 a commissioner held that people who were licensees rather than full tenants had no right to furniture grants when they moved house. It is now 1984 and the proposals to extend furniture grant to licensees are still, I understand, only in draft. Such behaviour only confirms the suspicions of people who believe that the Government are much more interested in saving money than in promoting the interests of those on benefit.
It is a serious affront to Parliament that the Government have increasingly frequently during this past year, on receiving a decision from the Social Security Advisory Committee of which they clearly did not approve, laid regulations the next day to invalidate that decision. The Government have then taken the regulation as coming into force the day after without any explicit approval by Parliament. It may be months before Parliament has an opportunity to debate the matter and vote on it.
We feel so strongly that this is an abuse of Parliament that I have passed a file on this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure with a request that it urgently studies the matter and, if it agrees with us, makes strong recommendations to the House that such circumventory devices shall be straightaway discontinued by the Government.
Our third complaint against these regulations is the high-handed response of the Government when they were revealed to have misled Parliament. The amendment to the single payments regulations was caused by a ruling of a social security commissioner that the consolidation of those regulations in November 1981 had altered the provisions governing help with furniture. "Altered" is the crucial word. However, on 2 December 1981 the then Minister gave the House the assurance that
the consolidated version"—
of the single payment regulations
reflects the law as it was before consolidation."—[Official Report, 2 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 363.]
That that manifestly was not the case became immediately apparent to claimants and their benefit advisers. Before 23 November 1981, which was the operative date for the regulations to come into force, benefit officers were happy to award grants for cookers and heaters to single unemployed people who had recently moved into new accommodation. From that date, all requests for such aid were refused.
The crucial point is that local DHSS officers told advisers that they had been told that there had been a change in the law. Local DHSS officers were saying one thing to claimants and advisers and the Minister was saying a completely different thing to the House.
The Child Poverty Action Group, I think rightly, took a test case on the issue almost immediately the consolidated regulations came into effect. It took over two years for the case to come before the social security commissioner who confirmed that the so-called consolidation regulations were no such thing. There is no doubt that

practice in local DHSS offices altered after 23 November 1981 on instructions from above. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are sensitive about the use of certain language when one is making the kind of accusations that I am making, but equally—I say this advisedly—I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Department was in ignorance of the fact that the consolidation of the single payment regulations altered the law.
There is one other aspect to this whole wretched saga which is seriously worrying and to which I wish to draw attention. It is the ease with which the supplementary benefit regulations can be altered, and that is one of the reasons why they are so sloppily drafted. For the Department it simply does not matter, and that is what is so worrying about this episode.
If the Department's civil servants draft a regulation that does not quite mean what they meant it to say, they know from what has happened in these two cases that they have at least two years of operating the rule according to the original intention before a claimant—if one can be found—has laboriously gone through the appeal court procedure to persuade a commissioner that the letter of the law is not being followed. Judging by what has happened, all that the civil servants have then to do is correct the error. No attempt is made — this is wrong — to compensate the very poor people who have lost out because the law has not been correctly implemented.
There is then the problem of the conditions of entitlement regulations. I repeat again that I have no strong feelings either way—this is not why the Opposition are bringing this matter before the House — on whether holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice should be counted concurrently rather than consecutively, although it does make a difference. That is not the point. However, we feel strongly that benefit officers should implement what the law says and not what the Department meant it to say. In this case, a tribunal of commissioners has held that the law has been wrongly applied since November 1980, but no attempt has been made or will be made by the Government to rectify the errors made in the assessments for tens of thousands of claimants.
For the three reasons of meanness to the poor when the Government have been so indulgent on so many occasions to the rich, bland disregard for an independent appeals system and for the proper acquiring of parliamentary authority, and unwillingness to compensate people or the poverty line when the Government's errors have damaged their interests and when their own Ministers have misled Parliament, we seek the support of the House in throwing out these ill-judged, unnecessary and undesirable regulations.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I am grateful for the opportunity to explain clearly to the House why the Government have found it necessary to introduce the two sets of amendment regulations that we are debating this evening and, in particular, why we have used the "urgency" procedure provided for explicitly in section 10(7) of the Social Security Act 1980 and referred the regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee after, rather than before, they were made.
In both cases, the need for the amendment regulations has arisen because the social security commissioners have found that the law is other than what the Government had


hitherto believed it to be. I must make it absolutely clear at the outset that in both cases all the regulations do is restore the status quo. There is no question of any new policy being surreptitiously introduced. The House should bear that in mind in considering the Opposition motion.

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd): Is the Minister telling the House that the Government knew that, for example, their consolidation measure on cookers and heaters was a change in the law only when the social security commissioners so ruled, and that they had no idea before that?

Dr. Boyson: Yes. The Government believed that the law as it stood was as it is now, after the regulations. The regulations are producing what we thought was the case then. Tonight we are only rectifying two factors, without any change in policy, to introduce what we believed was the policy, which was accepted, despite disagreements with Opposition Members, by the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister believed it to be a consolidation measure, why were instructions in local offices changed?

Dr. Boyson: I am coming to that point. Before 1980–81, when the Government laid down practically the whole of the social security system in regulations, the social security commission regularly changed instructions, and hon. Members did not know that they had been changed. Since we laid down the regulations, hon. Members can examine and disagree with them, and if the regulations are not applied correctly, the House can debate the matter. We made the social security system visible to all — a see-through system. Under the Labour Government the regulations were not brough before the House and changes were made by the social security commissioners without our knowing about them. It is only because we have brought the matter into the open that Opposition Members can debate it tonight.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered the question. How is it that local DHSS offices said to benefit claimants and advisers that the law had been changed when the Minister's predecessor told the House that there had been no change in the law? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that it was recognised that there had been a change and invited the Government to admit it?

Dr. Boyson: It is simple. The legal advisers told the Government that there had been no change. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) must not get over-excited — we are debating social security and not the National Health Service. Local offices were not sent instructions to say that there had been a change, but an interpretation was sent out. Interpretations are sent out regularly from the national centre to the local offices. To my knowledge nothing was sent out to say that there had been a change. Interpretations were sent out under the Labour Government just as they are sent out under the Conservative Government. This interpretation was sent out in October 1981. In the debate at that time it was said that the legal advice to the Government was that it was a consolidation matter. It did not go to the Social Security Advisory Committee. If

previous Labour Governments have never been wrongly advised, they have been flaming well lucky. [Interruption.] 
I am only on page 1 of my brief and there are 10 exciting pages to come. Perhaps it is because Opposition Members fear what is to come that they try to delay me.
In one case a tribunal of commissioners found that the existing regulations did not support the long-standing policy of successive Governments and the Supplentary Benefits Commission that claimants should be disqualified from supplementary benefit for the consecutive periods covered by earnings, holiday pay and payments in lieu of notice received on termination of employment. It has always been understood that, as against unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit was a benefit of last resort and that any other means of income should come first. The commissioners found that under the regulations then current, the periods covered by such payments should run concurrently rather than consecutively, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was right about the difference.
I should point out that the chief adjudication officer —I remind the House that he has now taken over the functions of the chief supplementary benefit officer under the new unified system of social security adjudication that came into effect last month—has some doubts about the legal basis of the commissioners' decision, and with the leave of the commissioners he appealed against it to the Court of Appeal. He asked the court for an expedited hearing, and I believe that it will take place in July. Therefore, we have appealed against the interpretation sent out. We are not yet entirely convinced that the advice that we received was correct, and only the Court of Appeal can establish whether our interpretation or that of the commissioners is correct.

Mr. Walter Harrison: That means the hon. Gentleman is not sure.

Dr. Boyson: We are not sure. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. We are open-minded and do not have the blind prejudice of Opposition Members. It seemed right to the Goverment to put the legal position beyond doubt as a matter of urgency, rather than to wait for the outcome of the appeal, and that is what the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations do. I shall say something more about the use of the urgency procedure in a moment.
The other case was rather different. When the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payment) Regulations were consolidated in 1981, the wording of what is now regulation 10(1)(b) was changed. The Government's intention at that time was to clarify the circumstances in which single payments of supplementary benefit for essential furniture and household equipment could be made. It was not our intention to change the effect of the regulation, and on the basis of the advice available to the Government at the time, we did not believe that we were doing so.
To be perfectly fair, as I have always said, it was argued at the time by the Opposition that the new regulations changed the law. The Government, on the advice that they received, took the other view. A recent decision of a social security commissioner has, however, found that the effect of the regulations in force before 1981 was different from what we believed it to be, and that therefore the 1981


regulations substantially changed the law. The commissioner consequently ruled that as the 1981 regulations had been introduced as consolidating regulations, and had not therefore been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, regulation 10(1)(b) was now invalid to the extent of the change.
The Government accept that the commissioner's decision has now settled the legal issue, and that we had previously come down on the wrong side of a finely balanced argument. Those who have read the report will know that there were 18 pages of closely argued legal discussion before the commissioner gave his decision. He said:
The process has involved anxious consideration of complex questions of legal principle.
This is by no means a simple issue.
The practical effect of the commissioner's decision would be to make single payments for essential furniture and household equipment, often amounting to several hundred pounds in each case, more widely available than this Government, or any Government, had intended them to be. To take just one example, unemployed teenagers who had a perfectly satisfactory home with their parents but who felt the urge to leave home and set up on their own, would become absolutely entitled—there would be no element of discretion in the matter—to have all the essential items of furniture in their new homes provided immediately at the taxpayers' expense. That is what will happen unless we lay these regulations. We took the view — I should be surprised if it were not shared by the general public—that it would have been irresponsible to leave the law unamended longer than necessary, thus enabling payments to be made contrary to the Government's declared policy intention. Therefore, we decided to amend the regulations as a matter of urgency to restore the original intention, as reflected in the wording of the 1981 consolidating regulations.
I shall say something more about the actual effect of the single payment amendment regulations in a moment. But first I want to deal with some of the points that have been raised on the procedural aspects of both sets of regulations. Let me at the outset ask the House to consider what sort of debate we might have been having on the detailed supplementary benefit issues under the previous Labour Government. As I have already said, the answer is that we would not be having such a debate. The alterations would have been made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is only through the goodness of the Conservative party that there is a debate tonight. I hope that Labour Members will be gracious enough to give a vote of thanks for that. Let me spell the matter out because I do not think that it is understood by many Labour Members. Before the reforms introduced by the Government in 1980, the detailed rules of supplementary benefit entitlement—the conditions for receiving single payments for furniture, the rules for the treatment of holiday pay, and hundreds of other such things—were all set out in a secret code issued by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. There was no S manual at that time. They were not, as now, set out in published regulations subject to scrutiny by Parliament, the pressure groups, the press and the public. Under the Labour Government it was not even Ministers responsible to Parliament who made the rules. They were settled behind closed doors—I will not say in smoke-filled rooms — in Carey street by that worthy but nevertheless wholly unelected body, the

Supplementary Benefits Commission. Labour Members may not like the rules, but at least under this Government they have a chance of discuss them and to vote for or against them in the House. At least one can now see how the system works.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would it not be best to ask claimants what they think about it? I suggest that they preferred the previous system because it was a little more generous than the present one. They resent the fact that each time the regulations unexpectedly work in the claimants' favour the Government change the rules immediately to make things harsher.

Dr. Boyson: If the hon. Gentleman waits, I shall give an illustration of an opposite case, which happened last summer.
I always thought that the hon. Gentleman believed in open government. I now find that he does not. He seems to believe that a little discretion is better than a knowledge of the rules. With great respect, I find that surprising. The hon. Gentleman has always been consistent. I have served with him on many Committees when he has raised matters such as the secrecy of school records and so on. We have brought matters out into the open.
If we compare, case by case, what was spent before 1980, allowing indexation for inflation, I shall be surprised if we are not spending more on social security now within these rules. Everybody knows—certainly all the welfare rights bodies know—what they are entitled to. I have some special figures which I am leaving until the end to show the vast increase that there has been under this terrible Conservative Government compared with under the previous Labour Government.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious, as he assures us he is, to have the fullest possible scrutiny—he has made grand claims on behalf of the Government on that account — why does not he refer the regulations to the SSAC?

Dr. Boyson: They have been referred to the SSAC. The hon. Lady may rest assured of that. An urgency proposal has been written in. When the Secretary of State considers that something is urgent he has the right to put the regulations into operation while simultaneously sending them to the SSAC. I can reassure the hon. Lady that both regulations have been sent to the SSAC. They are urgent because they would change the whole basis of the way in which supplementary benefit is given. If Labour Members are prepared to leave matters for months, I fear to think what would happen if we ever had another Labour Government.
So much for the background. Given that we now have a regulated scheme, it has been suggested that it is somehow unconstitutional, or at least unsporting, to amend the law in cases where the independent adjudicating authorities have found that the law does not reflect Government policy. The idea seems to be that in such cases the correct course would be for the Government., as it were, to grin and bear it on the principle that we win some, we lose some. It is a funny way of running a Government to say, "Let's see what is happening outside. It is hard luck that it costs another £2, but we can afford it in the Labour party." However, I must not be distracted.
I suggest that this view reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between the legislature and the


independent adjudicating authorities. Parliament has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State powers to make regulations—subject, I need hardly say, to the normal requirements for parliamentary scrutiny, which we are now observing with regard to the prayer, and I have said that I am grateful for the fact that the prayer was tabled so that we could bring the policy forward. It is the function of the independent adjudicating authorities to decide how those regulations should be applied in individual cases. If, in doing so, the adjudicating authorities find that the law is not what the Government believed it to be, the ball is back in the Government's court. No responsible Government could allow policies to be amended and altered in the way that the Opposition are suggesting without taking action, when it is necessary to do so. I will give an illustration shortly of what was done under the Labour Government at least as fast, if not faster—because we learned how to do it from the Labour Government, and we pay our tribute to them for that.
The other point that has been raised is on the use of the urgency procedure, and whether it is right to make these regulations without prior reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Again, I am unrepentant. The urgency procedure was provided for in the main legislation for exactly this type of contingency. In cases where there is no question of any new policy being introduced, but where, on the other hand, the legislative basis of existing policy is shown to be invalid, there is often no time for prior consultation with the SSAC. Urgent action may well need to be taken to put matters right, and this could apply just as much in a case where the effect of a commissioner's decision was to pay less benefit as in a case like those which gave rise to the regulations that we are considering tonight where the effect is to pay more. I promise the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that I shall come to a case where, last July, we moved the other way to make sure that claimants did not lose money.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister say what he will do if the social security commissioners suggest that the Government should not invoke the regulations?

Dr. Boyson: I shall deal with what the social security commissioners say when they arrive. I am not a futurologist. We are studying the history of the last three or four years, and we are also dealing with the present time.
To illustrate the point that it works both ways, I advise the House of the urgent action that we took last year to include at a very late stage an amendment to the resources regulations shortly before the draft regulations, giving effect to what has become the annual amendment exercise, were laid before the House. Again, last July, following a decision of a tribunal of commissioners, it was necessary to restore the policy intention in relation to the treatment, for supplementary benefit purposes, of sums held in trust, particularly for vaccine damaged children. The tribunal had ruled that a sole beneficiary's interest in the trust fund was an actual resource to be taken into account, contrary to the policy exercised by the present Government and by past Governments. A specific provision was therefore added to the draft regulations to be laid before the House, and we informed the SSAC at the same time of the action that we had taken.
All that we wanted then, and all that we want now, is to make sure that the law is what was intended when it was passed by Parliament, by regulation or otherwise. While the annual amendment package provided the opportunity to introduce the amendment quickly, we would in any event have amended the regulations urgently, had that not been the case. Indeed, we put it in the July uprating regulations that were going in, at the same time informing the SSAC what we were doing. This proves the point about which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was concerned. It is doing it not only when it means more Government money being spent, but when less money will be spent if the claimants will lose unfairly.
Let us go back to cases where the effect of the commissioner's decision was to pay more benefit than under the intended policy. As I reminded the House in the course of a similar debate last year on the amending regulations affecting entitlement to single payments for medical expenses, the Labour Government took exactly the same line as us on a commissioner's decision in 1978 relating to housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension. I referred to it in detail in the debate on 5 December 1983, when I said:
The previous Labour Government laid similar regulations when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was Minister. In September 1978, when the Labour Government were in power, the social security commissioners made a decision about entitlement to housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension . . . Within days, regulations were laid, just as we have laid regulations. They were laid before the matter went to the advisory committee. We learned how to proceed from the Labour Government's actions in 1978."— [Official Report, 5 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 118.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That was wrong then!

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman may have the right to say that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is consistent, but I see an Achilles' heel developing on the question of open government. However, we object to Opposition Members attacking us for what we have done when they did exactly the same. We object to them claiming a monopoly of consistency, because it just is not true. However, I exempt the hon. Gentleman from that. Nevertheless we quite fairly object when Opposition Front Bench Members say that they never did something.
It is not even as though the SSAC will not have the opportunity in this case of commenting on the regulations and the underlying policies that they reflect. Both sets of regulations have now been referred to it; interested bodies will be consulted, and the SSAC will produce reports on the regulations, copies of which, with my right hon. Friend's response, will be laid before the House.
Finally, I should like to say something very briefly about the policy underlying the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payment) Amendment Regulations. There has been a lot of criticism of the principle—which those amending regulations put back on to a secure legislative basis—that claimants who are moving home should, in certain circumstances, be entitled to a single payment for furniture only if no suitable alternative furnished accommodation is available in the area. It has been suggested that we should take this opportunity of removing this condition, on the grounds that it is unjust and unworkable.
I freely admit that the regulation is far from perfect and that the "suitable alternative furnished accommodation" condition presents difficulties in practice. There has been


another recent commissioner's decision about this condition and the chief supplementary benefit officer—as he then was—issued guidance to local offices about how it should be interpreted in the light of that decision. But difficulties are likely to remain. The Department has asked the social security policy inspectorate to report on the operation of the regulation governing single payments for furniture, and in particular the effects of the "suitable furnished accommodation" condition. That is the same inspectorate as brought to light the voluntary unemployment deductions that were not put back last summer.

As I have indicated, my own feeling is that it is at the very least questionable whether substantial assistance should be given, at taxpayers' expense, almost automatically to people who may only be on benefit for a short while, and who may have suitable furnished accommodation available to them, such as with their parents, while no help is given to those with similar incomes who are in full-time work. Thus the poverty trap is also relevant to this regulation.

We shall need to look at this whole area in the light of the inspectorate report, any views that the SSAC expresses on these amendment regulations and, of course, the current review of the supplementary benefit scheme as a whole. Meanwhile it must be right to ensure that existing policy will be continued.

I turn to the financial side of the issue. To listen to Opposition Members, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, one would sometimes think that the Government were spending nothing on social security. One might even think that they were not spending more than the Labour Party spent on social security, given the indignation that is heard from time to time. Yet let us look at what is happening. I have a sobering thought for Opposition Members, and they may wish to adjourn the House so that they can think about it. It must strike at the very heart of their philosophy and confidence, and the very worst thing is to destroy someone's confidence, particularly just before the three-day weekend that some may be looking forward to after the events of last night. The House must be aware of what the policy has meant, in terms of numbers, over the past few years.

Since 1978, the last full year of a Labour Government, the number of single payments for furniture has escalated from about 150,000 to nearly 500,000 a year. That is more than a threefold increase. This terrible Government, who are grinding the faces of the poor into the dust, have trebled such payments in four years. Total expenditure has increased from £5-8 million to £33-2 million—a sixfold increase. I doubt whether even Opposition Members

would want payments to be made under certain conditions. The average payment has increased from £39.70 to £67.65.

I have said this before, but it needs to be repeated. The bare statistics alone are proof that the Opposition's charges about the Government's attitude to social security claimants are completely unjustified, and proof that compassion can be found on Government Benches just as often, if not more often, as on the Opposition benches.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The Minister has given us statistics showing how much has been spent, but how much would it cost the Exchequer if the Government did not go back and restore the law to what they believe it should be?

Dr. Boyson: The cost would be millions and millions of pounds.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Exactly how much?

Dr. Boyson: I do not know. If the hon. Gentleman knows, he should be backing horses. It is easier to do that than to know how many people would apply for the grant. Anybody could set themselves up elsewhere, having left home or any other furnished accommodation. They could move into an empty flat. There are plenty of empty council flats in inner city areas these days and councils cannot let them. Without the regulations people could claim for £700 or £800 worth of furniture.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Nonsense.

Dr. Boyson: They could. The hon. Gentleman lives in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that people will not use the law to their advantage. The costs include heaters, cookers, furniture and so on. I shall try to find the exact figures to bring the reality home to hon. Members. If they could say that 67,453 people, for instance, would apply in the next three weeks I could give the figure. Without the figures I am wasting my time. I should, perhaps, be participating in treasure hunts organised by The Standard. It is impossible.

We think that it is wrong that people who have accommodation, or live at home with their parents, should be able to move into empty accommodation and claim the cost of furnishing it from the local social services department. I should be amazed if the majority of people did not think the same. We do not know the cost involved. I have no doubt that whatever Government were in power would bring the law back to what was intended originally.

I hope that I have convinced the House that both sets of regulations are desirable and, indeed essential, and that the House should now accept — sorry, reject — the Opposition prayer without further debate.

Orders of the Day — Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd): We have had the usual Lancastrian Max Miller act from the House's favourite Government Front Bench clown who never tries to match up to the seriouness of the subject. It is time he became a Minister of State in his Department instead of treating us to the rather banal comedy act which gets more tedious as we go through debate after debate.
I intend to concentrate on the regulations dealing with single payments, because in that regard the Government at least owe the House an apology. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, they misled the House in December 1981 when they advised us that we were then passing a correct consolidation measure when in reality we were changing the law. It must be a bitter pill for the Department and its legal advisers to swallow to realise that there was a change in the law.
I do not say that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) deliberately misled the House on that occasion, but the effect of what she said was to mislead the House into thinking that it was dealing with a consolidation measure, despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I both warned the Government that it was not a true consolidation measure and that it was changing the law. We were brushed aside. The superior departmental wisdom which the Minister of State is still relying upon knew much better than we did about the regulations and we were assured that there was no change in the law.
It is not good enough for the Minister of State simply to say that everybody always understood that that was the law. The case that was quoted in the debate on 2 December 1981 involved a claimant who was told by the Department that there had been a change in the law. That was brushed aside. We were told that there was no change whatsoever. I invite the Minister of State upon mature reflection at least to do the House the courtesy of apologising for what the Government did. An apology was singularly absent from the Minister's speech tonight.
The effect of the decision by the social security commissioners that the words complained of in the regulation were changing the law is that for three years claimants who were entitled under the regulations to a cooker and a heater were unlawfully denied those claims. Even if Ministers make knockabout speeches, no Government should be proud of the fact that for three years they have acted completely outside the law. For that, too, we are entitled to an apology. Even more so, the claimants who have been denied help should be traced and offered recompense for the illegal decisions that were made on their claims.
The matter is even more serious. I intervened deliberately to try to find out what the Minister thought he was saying on behalf of the Department. He said that it was proceeding in a perfectly orderly manner and then along came the decision of the social security commissioners which knocked it for six; at the beginning of April the Department read the 18 pages of legal argument which knocked it absolutely sideways and showed it that its understanding of the law was wrong and, therefore, it had to rush. It did not know how many cases or how much

money had been involved, but the matter was urgent. That is a curious way of saying to the House that urgency was justified. I would have thought that he who certifies urgency has a duty to prove it to the House and not the other way round.
The Minister has a duty to prove the urgency of the case. He misled us even in that. I am sorry to say that of him, but he was so carried away by his knockabout act that he did not measure his words. Although he said yes—a three letter word—the first the Government had heard was when the Commissioner made his decision.
The case upon which the commissioner decided was that of Neil Paul Cameron, which was first decided by the appeal tribunal in February 1982. On 25 November, a few days before the famous consolidation debate, that man had been granted a cooker. He applied for installation charges, but the Department opposed that. The appeal was heard on 10 February, scarcely two months after we debated the matter. The departmental submission is interesting and points out exactly how the Minister misled the House.
The chairman's notes of evidence state:
Department's officer referred the Tribunal to Reg. 10(1) of the Supp Ben (Single Payments) Regs 1981. He explained that the payment made to the appellant was incorrect and that in view of the new legislation should not have been made.
The Department, within two months of the debate, was saying something wholly opposed to what we had been assured in December 1981 would be the effect of the consolidation.
The Minister owes the House an apology for what he said from the Dispatch Box when he opened the Debate. I acquit him of deliberately misleading the House — I think that, in the fervour of the moment—he has many fervours of the moment—he said something that he did not intend. But the effect of what he said, unless it had been checked, would have misled the House.
The Department did not know for the first time in April 1984 that the law had been changed. Its officers knew within two months of the debate in the House and were making submissions to the tribunals accordingly. It is a reproach to the Government that they have waited so long — if they feel so strongly — before bringing back the regulations. They should say that they made a mistake but the matter is so important that they will amend the regulations.
Many officers of the Department must have been using exactly the same argument. That is why we have a right to complain tonight about the handling of the matter and also about the way in which the House is treated. The Minister said it would never have happened under a Labour Government. The regulations were codified under a Conservative Government to remove a great deal of discretion that hitherto rested with officers at local level. Having codified them and placed them before the House, the Government have a duty to be honest, frank and correct when they are debated. They should not mislead the House about their effect and then say that we had every chance to scrutinise. We cannot scrutinise an assurance that turns out to be wholly wrong.
If only because the Government have shown themselves unrepentant about what is, by any standards, disgraceful behaviour, and unrepentant about misleading the House not once, but twice, a Division is necessary.
The Minister says "We cannot have the law interpreted by the social security commissioners." The House passes many laws which are interpreted by the High Court, and


I have yet to see a Government rushing to change legislation on every occasion when a High Court judgment reveals the law to be other than what it was thought to be when it was passed. We must, of course, be careful in choosing what, if any, intervention we make into the affairs of the judicial system.
I agree with the Minister that the judiciary is totally independent of the Department. In a way, however, it is neutered as well as being neutral if it knows that every time it makes a decision that is unfavourable to the Government, the Government will alter the legislation. I urge the Government to take that step only when really necessary following a High Court decision which is unfavourable or unwelcome to them. Otherwise, all the benefits that will come from the unification of the adjudication procedures and the proper examination of cases will be dissipated because appelants will know that behind every successful appeal may lie what might be called an urgency procedure.
I fear that a Government who, in a matter of this kind, could, between 24 and 26 April, consider laying and then bring into force these regulations, are not a Government who will encourage a proper system of adjudication. For all the Minister's bluster, the reality is that he and his colleagues have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They had better apologise so that they may remove their hands quickly from the jar.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): I have three points to make, the first being to comment on one of the themes adduced by the Minister, and in doing that I draw a moral for his hon. Friends. In our proceedings tonight, the last Labour Government have appeared like Banquo's ghost. It is easy for me to speak about the record of that Government because I was not an hon. Member of the House at that time and did not have to vote in the Lobby. Looking back on that record, I hope that there are on these Benches some of my hon. Friends who are ashamed of some of the actions for which they voted.
I hope, too, that Conservative Members see how crippled we are in contributing to this debate because not sufficient hon. Members who supported the Labour Government at the time were prepared to vote for their consciences rather than for the Whips.
I hope that tonight's speeches from these Benches, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), will persuade many Conservative Members not only to make a stand against the Government —a stand which is right on principle—but to enlarge the freedom which they may need to exercise in future Parliaments. We shall have heard the last of Banquo's ghost when some of the Minister's hon. Friends vote against him, and I hope that that will happen tonight.
Secondly, we often talk about the importance of a free society, a theme which I hope unites both sides of the House. However, we rarely go on to discuss the web of institutions, values and actions that makes up a free society. Tonight the Government stand condemned for taking a small step—I accept that it is a small one—which will undermine that free society. The Government are asking us to undermine still further two bodies which have been established to check the power of government. If we believe in a free society, we believe in establishing a set of institutions which can check central Government.
The Government are slowly undermining the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think that I have more right than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends to speak on the issue because I was the only Labour Member who voted for the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the establishment of the Committee. I was told by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the abolition of the commission would be a terrible blow for the poor and that many of my constituents would be distressed. When I returned to Birkenhead the weekend after Parliament decided to abolish the commission I found that none of my constituents was weeping in the streets. Many of my constituents referred to the commission as the unemployment assistance board, and that is how they refer to the present regime.
The Social Security Advisory Committee was established by Parliament. It was given independence and the role of advising the Government on policy changes. We are discussing one of a series of instances when the Government, believing that the issue might be slightly difficult to tackle, have decided to take action first and to consult the committee afterwards. In the long run, that is a form of action that will undermine the committee's authority. That in turn must play some part in determining the qualities of the person who the Government are seeking to appoint as chairman. Who will want that appointment when it is likely that the Government will remove from the committee's remit and deliberations most of the important issues that come before it?
We are beginning to create two tiers of law. The first tier is the main stream of law that comes within the traditional judicial process and the second tier is welfare law. It is rare for High Court decisions to be overturned within days by the House, but sadly that is becoming a regular occurrence in respect of decisions of the equivalent High Court procedure for the poor, which are overturned if they go in their favour.
I disagree to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He was right to say that we object to the manner in which the Government are taking their decisions, but he suggested that the substance of the decisions was not very important. I agree that that is so in the context of one set of regulations. Few of us could object to the changes that the Government are introducing for holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice. They will merely mean that individuals will spend that money before they go on to benefit. They will be the losers, but they will not suffer any great hardship, That cannot be said of the other regulations on cookers and heating. I beg the Government to reconsider their decision. Many of the poor will suffer and their decision will undermine what they claim to be one of the main planks of Conservative policy, which is to help people stand on their own two feet.
There are many empty council flats in the constituency in which I live and some individuals on supplementary benefit would choose to move into them. However, it is difficult to move into accommodation without a cooker or a heater, especially a cooker. A person who does not have a cooker will have to spend a disproportionate amount of his benefit buying food in cafes. There comes a point—it is usually after about three weeks — when people become fed up with living on sandwiches. At that stage they start to go to cheaper forms of cafe. If that is done by someone who is in receipt of supplementary benefit, he


[Mr. Frank Field]
will be unable to pay his other bills. That means that he will start to fall into rent arrears and accumulate other debts.
I hope that the Government will be moved by some of the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends and me on the cooker and heater regulations. That matter is important to the poor. It is an important point in the Government's statements about their long-term strategy of helping people to stand on their own two feet.
I make a plea to the House to make a stand and to defend and foster those somewhat fragile institutions we are trying to build up against the power of the state. I hope that all of us who are libertarians, rather than Right or Left—wing centralisers, will be in the Lobby. I hope that hon. Members will note the lessons of the last Labour Government that have been endlessly pointed out. Many good things can be said for the last Labour Government. Much of their record was found wanting. We lost an election, so the record could not have been all that good. Conservative Members see how we are crippled when we are trying to argue our corner because hon. Members swallowed hard two Parliaments ago and voted for measures that they perhaps did not believe were right. I hope, because it is important that we have honourable Back Benchers, that many Conservative Members will join the Labour Members in the Lobby.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am sure that it would be appreciated by you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members if I do not rehearse the details of how certain cases arose. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) read the Child Poverty Action Group brief as accurately as anyone could, and I believe that the details were covered.
I am worried that the Minister relies on putting the worst possible interpretation on what might happen if the matter were not returned to what the Government believe it should have been. It is difficult to accept his point, because he gave no estimate of the cost of letting the present position continue as though the regulations had been interpreted properly in the commissioners' determination. It is difficult to accept that calculations of the cost have not been made in the depths of the DHSS.
Predictions are made of all sorts of possible cases. The Government's expenditure plans are put before us repeatedly. Figures are shown to be out by substantial amounts. As those hon. Members who have served on the Select Committee on Social Services know, departmental officials must justify those projections under cross-examination.
Those hon. Members who represent inner city constituencies and areas of high deprivation know only too well the need to give the benefit of the doubt to claimants. The Minister's reliance on principle and his appeal for consistency in these matters would be acceptable only if the resources available to those suffering under the recession and economic crisis were sufficient for people to live on. It is not as though people will make a great killing if the regulations continue to be interpreted as at present. I suspect that the appeal from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose consistency and sincerity on these matters is well known to both sides of the House, will not be heeded by Conservative Members.
By and large, Conservative Members do not understand the problems of individuals in need in those parts of the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Rubbish.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." There is a vast difference between the needs of people in the pockets of very high unemployment in parts of our cities and elsewhere. Surveys in cities in the north, for example Bradford and Leeds, show that the unemployment figures are 50 per cent. and 60 per cent., not 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. Those facts are not shown up by the global statistics put forward by the DHSS.
We are dealing with people who are not living on supplementary benefit, but existing on it. The definition of poverty given by the former chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Mr. David Donnison, was that it was the inability to live with dignity in one's own community. The present position does not allow people to live with dignity. At the margin, where there are little ways to assist people, the Government are not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
A great deal of bitterness is felt in the community over what is seen as the Government's attitude. These changes have been brought about only because organisations, some grant-aided by local government and some by central Government, have pursued their clients' cases assiduously and have managed to prove to the commissioners that previous interpretations were wrong. The organisations therefore obtained benefits for their clients. The Minister said that the regulations have been brought before the House because the amount of discretion has been reduced. The regulations are the quid pro quo for that.
When the supplementary benefit regulations allowed considerable discretion, those voluntary organisations, underpinned by grant aid, using many volunteers, could argue the case for reasonableness and for supplementary benefit officers having exercised their discretion. That action will not now be open to them. The door has been shut on the ways that the organisations found to assist their clients with the draconian regulations.
Those of us who have constituency cases are well aware that people have to fight to obtain single payments. That is not money to spend on equipping a house to the standards that the Minister and I would deem acceptable. In most cases they can obtain only second-hand equipment to set up any kind of a home. It is no good saying that teenagers might leave home. We all know of single parents who exist for weeks before they can extract the single payment that they need to survive.
I noted the Minister's words. He said that the regulations had been brought about because he thought that the commissioners had come down on the wrong side of a finely balanced argument. That seems to illustrate the attitude of a Government who will slam the door shut on any attempt to obtain better conditions for those who find themselves in severe and distressing circumstances.
Many hon. Members feel that the system is breaking down, and the way that people have to rely on supplementary benefit is not conducive to the stable and secure communities that we wish to see. The amounts involved may not be important, but to those struggling to survive the Government's attitude is the most harmful aspect of the matter.
None of us wish to see again what happened in our cities in the summer of 1981. All these matters are cumulative. They seem to show people who have nothing else to live for that they might as well take to the streets and take the matter into their own hands, because they cannot find a legitimate way through the jungle of regulations and statistics to obtain benefits.
I beg the Minister and Conservative Members to heed the words of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and those of us who are seeking to help people to have better conditions, and accept that it is not a good idea to try and take back the small benefits that have been obtained by recourse to the commissioners.

Dr. Boyson: I shall make a few comments on the points raised by the Opposition.
I have said that we do not know how much money is involved in the single payments. One does not know how many people would set up on their own if they knew that they could move into unfurnished accommodation when furnished accommodation was available at home, with relatives or elsewhere in a town. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) that only second-hand furniture would generally be obtained. Obviously, the number of claimants will be limited by the amount of the furnished accommodation that is available, and so on. There is no means for giving a figure. All that we know is that considerably more people would move into such accommodation than do now.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was about the regulations covering whether the benefit periods run concurrently or consecutively. I can tell him—if he will listen to me instead of to his leader, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), he can continue the conversation later—that the figure for the difference between whether the periods run concurrently or consecutively would be at least £8.4 million a year.

Mr. Frank Field: There will be a saving, then?

Dr. Boyson: There will not be a saving, because if the commissioner's interpretation stands, £8.4 million will be paid that is not at the moment. There would be a saving only if benefit was paid for some time under the commissioner's interpretation which would then be taken back again.
I shall make a last point to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, and then I shall leave him in peace—I was making notes, and, as he was the last speaker, his speech is the most fresh in my mind. I take his point that supplementary benefit is not the best standard of living—we all know that—and it is the benefit of last recourse. However, the purchasing power of supplementary benefit compared with when it was introduced in 1948 is double in real terms. It is as well to remember that. We are glad that the purchasing power is twice what it was in 1948.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is there not a great difference between 1948 and now, especially the time during which people have to survive on supplementary benefit, which was much shorter then? It is the long—term existence on the benefit that is so debilitating, and that problem is very different from those of 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the difference between the two, and this is why the long-term supplementary benefit was brought in for those who had been on it for more than a year.
I grant the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between the laying down of regulations and a system relying on discretion. There are advantages both ways. The staff in the local offices to whom I have talked prefer that there should be regulations governing what is allowed or not allowed. They used to get many calls because different offices would give different figures, and there were sometimes unpleasant scenes, whereas now there is a rule book that can be referred to.
A number of hon. Members have spoken as though we are undermining the Social Security Advisory Committee, but we in fact established it, and are replacing people who have left. We have just sent it a package of 54 proposals for summer regulations, and we are consulting the committee in full on all of it. Tonight we are dealing with three changes under the urgency provisions—about 5 per cent. of them. Out of fairness to the Government, that should be pointed out.
Before I sum up I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) about misleading. We do not intend to mislead now, and we did not in 1981. We were given legal advice that we were making a consolidation and not a change. The hon. Member spoke about local offices. Some of them thought that the law had changed — the hon. Member was right to say that. Advice was then issued on what we thought the law meant in October 1981, before the consolidation, and we believed that that is what it meant after the consolidation. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of a long circular covering the single payments regulation, issued in 1981, because it sets out the belief that we were acting on. We were doing what we thought had been done before. and that is why the 1981 change was considered to be consolidation.
Two points have been made in the debate. One is about whether the benefit is consecutive or concurrent. If supplementary benefit is a benefit of last resort, it should be given only when no other money is available. If a person has enough on which to live for some weeks, to give that person the benefit would take it away from somebody else who needed it. Therefore, it is a matter of honour as much as of finance.
The Government's actions are right. We are returning to what we believe was the previous position. If people can set up on their own in unfurnished accommodation and immediately get second—hand furniture installed with the aid of supplementary benefit, the family unit would not be encouraged. It would instead encourage people to move away from the family after the slightest argument and it would be costly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may disagree, but I have spent much time with adolescents and know that they have huge arguments with their parents. The hon. Member may not be aware of that—he may have lived in a different society. I have worked in down-town areas as much as any hon. Member, and know that immediately after arguments many adolescents would live on their own if they could, but that after a few days the family unit is re—established.
It would be entirely wrong if working people who could not afford to buy furniture for unfurnished accommodation


[Dr. Boyson]
discovered that people on supplementary benefit had that privilege. We do not want to create such a gap between working and non-working people.
The Government, with these regulations, are moving the supplementary benefit system back to where we believed it was, as the Labour Government did with the housewife's non-contributory invalidity pension. I have no doubt that if the Labour party were in office now it would do exactly the same.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We have heard a rather sorry tale told in a rather sorry way. It involves bungling, incompetence and, at best and at worst, illegal action by the Government. Unfortunately, that is not untypical.
In recent weeks in Committee and on the Floor of the House during Health and Social Security Bill debates we have repeatedly heard of changes that must be made in the law, in regulations and in the schedule because the Government have got it wrong, the law does not do what they thought it did, and must be changed to what they imagined it was. All hon. Members are aware that this is the season for repeats on television, but we did not expect so many during social security debates.
When the Minister began he might have expected and, indeed, received, some sympathy. All hon. Members know what it is like to defend a poor case, and a decision in which one had no part and which was perhaps made in good faith. However, whatever sympathy he had was dissipated by his attitude. Our sympathy for him was further tempered and ultimately extinguished when we considered how much sympathy the Government have for the claimants affected by the regulations. The Minister is accustomed to busking his way through awkward positions, but some occasions are less suitable than others for that technique, and this is one of them.
The first set of cases, with which the Minister dealt, are simpler than the rest. It involves a change in policy brought about by the commissioners, who felt that it was a mistaken policy. It is unfortunate that it took two years for the appeal to be heard by the commissioner, but only a few days for the Government to make a change to restore the original position. Many hon. Members asked what the point of the appeal procedure is, but the Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. People who give time to serve on tribunals must wonder tonight why they give that time or, indeed, waste it.
The Minister said that they have gone to appeal on the matter, and hope to have a decision in July. He did not tell the House why it was not possible to wait until July to lay the regulations. That would be a reasonable length of time, during which the social Social Security Advisory Committee might have been able to comment in advance of the regulations, and perhaps come up with a more reasonable procedure than that which the Government adopted.
The more complicated matter is that of single payments. The Minister has said on at least three occasions that, in these regulations, the Government are restoring the position to what they believed it to be. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) rightly said, the Government were told on 2 December 1981, not the theory of the effect of these changes which the

Government put forward as consolidating regulations, but about the practice that was taking shape. They were given chapter and verse of concrete cases where decisions had been changed even before the debate in the House. Yet the Minister still says that it is news to the Department that the law was not as they had thought.
The Minister deployed an extraordinary circular argument. He said that the regulations must have been consolidating, and could not have introduced a change in policy, because they were not referred to the SSAC. If there had been a change of policy, they would have had to be referred to the SSAC. But the commissioners tell us that, because the regulations introduced a change in policy and were not a consolidation, they were ultra vires and illegal.
Tonight the Minister made a great play of the regulations that were introduced in 1981. Perhaps he did so because of the briefing that he was given, but if I were him I would not in future place much reliance on the briefings given by his Department on this matter. He should be aware that the change in policy took place between the 1980 and 1981 regulations. The policy which the Government are seeking to bring into effect tonight, and which we. shall try to stop, is the policy in the regulations ultimately drafted in 1981 and put forward as consolidating regulations. However, it was not the policy of the 1980 regulations, which they were supposed to consolidate. The change to which the commissioners referred took place then.
The Minister also told the House that the Government have referred to the inspectors the questions of payments for furniture and alternative furnished accommodation. We welcome that to some extent because in the past the inspectors have treated claimants fairly. But I must tell the Minister that his statement about the lack of change in policy is not borne out by what is happening in practice under the regulations on alternative furnished accommodation. The Minister said that the chief supplementary benefit officer has given guidance to other benefit officers about what a claimant must do. We are told, although the Minister did not see fit to mention it, that the guidance states that a claimant must produce—depending on the source to which one goes—either 13 or 15 separate refusals of accommodation to justify their contention that no suitable furnished accommodation is available.
The Minister talked a good deal about the young unemployed, and gave the impression that the only people who claimed such payments were the frivolous young who might, to use the Minister's words, two days after a quarrel with their parents and after taking substantial payments from the Department, trail back home. But the Minister must know—if he does not, his inspectors will soon tell him—of the long delays suffered by many claimants. One example is of a man who claimed a single payment for furniture and household equipment in March 1982. He claimed some items on the grounds that he had been discharged from hospital and was chronically sick. He had every case that one would wish to make, and there was no question of his being a frivolous teenager with minor, transitory problems. It was three months before the Department's officers visited him to decide whether he was entitled to payment; and some weeks later payment had still not been made. The Minister must know well that these payments are not easy to obtain.
The Minister also talked about the cost of making this change back to the policy that the Government thought that


they were — illegally — pursuing. In February the Minister said that the average limit for payments of social security for bed and breakfast was about £65 a week. A couple of weeks before that the Department of the Environment said that the average payments for a single bedroomed council flat for a single parent was about £16·10 a week. Although we are talking about the amounts involved in single payments, over a period of time there can be little question that not only do the claimants themselves benefit from the independence that they may enjoy but also there may well be substantial savings to the Department.
Ultimately, the problem that we have faced tonight is two—fold. Either my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) or the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) referred to the Minister as unrepentant. He was not only unrepentant, he was complacent, he was smug and he treated the whole matter as if it were all a bit of a good joke that we could all enjoy together and nobody would really suffer. He must know that that is not the circumstance.
The Minister did not tell us tonight—I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or myself and publish his reply—what he intends to do about the people who were wrongly denied benefit over the past three years. What does he intend to do to make the payments illegally denied them by the Government, and, in particular, what does he intend to do about those individuals, of whom there must now be some if not many who have outstanding claims for payments of this nature and in respect of whom payment, perhaps even in the last few days and weeks, has illegally been denied? The Minister did not tell us that tonight. He did not give us the apology that at least the claimants, if not the House, might justly have sought. For that reason, if for no other, we shall seek to annul the regulations tonight.

Question put and negatived.

Motion made, and Question put,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 593), dated 25th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled.—[Mr.Meacher]

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 147.

Division No. 294]
[11.26 pm


AYES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bennett, A. (Dent's &amp; Red'sh)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Loyden, Edward


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Robert
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Craigen, J. M.
Nellist, David


Crowther, Stan
Park, George


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge I-1'1)
Patchett, Terry


Deakins, Eric
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Randall, Stuart


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rooker, J. W.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)



Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Snape, Peter


Tellers for the Ayes:



Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Don Dixon and


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Peter Pike.


NOES


Stott, Roger
Hawksley, Warren


Aitken, Jonathan
Hayhoe, Barney


Alexander, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Amess, David
Hickmet, Richard Hind, Kenneth


Arnold, Tom
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'rn)


Aspinwall, Jack
Holt, Richard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Howard, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bellingham, Henry
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bendall, Vivian
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jackson, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Key, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Brinton, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lamont, Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Latham, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruinvels, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Buck, Sir Antony
Lightbown, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Lilley, Peter


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Lord, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Cash, William
Macfarlane, Neil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
MacGregor, John


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maclean, David John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Major, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey


Colvin, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Coombs, Simon
Mather, Carol


Cope, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Corrie, John
Merchant, Piers


Couchman, James
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Dorrell, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Dover, Den
Moore, John


Dunn, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Needham, Richard


Eggar, Tim
Nelson, Anthony


Evennett, David
Newton, Tony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steven


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Oppenheim, Philip


Fookes, Miss Janet
Ottaway, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Forth, Eric
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Pawsey, James


Fox, Marcus
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Franks, Cecil
Powell, William (Corby)


Freeman, Roger
Powley, John


Gale, Roger
Proctor, K. Harvey


Galley, Roy
Raffan, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Renton, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Ryder, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Ground, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stern, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hanley, Jeremy
Trippier, David


Hannam, John
Viggers, Peter


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Waddington, David


Harris, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Robert
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)






Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Motion made,

That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Bernard Conlan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS

Motion made,

That Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Roger Sims be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Business Expansion Scheme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Roger Freeman (Kettering): I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the business expansion scheme. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister responsible for small firms, is answering the debate, as I wish to deal not with the fiscal terms of the business expansion scheme but with its impact on small business development. The House knows of the great interest that my hon. Friend regularly demonstrates in that.
Hon. Members may find it useful to be briefly reminded of the background and essential features of the business expansion scheme. It was introduced in the Finance Act 1983 as a successor to the earlier and narrower business start—up scheme, which was launched in 1981. The scheme is, therefore in its infancy. It is far too early to make any judgment on its effect on enterprise and employment in the United Kingdom, but we can examine how it appears to be operating, and draw some preliminary conclusions.
The scheme runs until April 1987, and enables an individual and spouse to claim tax relief up to the marginal rate on full risk equity investments in qualifying unquoted and unrelated trading businesses up to £40,000 per annum.
I welcome the exclusion of farming schemes from the business expansion scheme, as announced by the Chancellor in his recent Budget.
Investments must be held for five years to qualify for full relief. Capital gains, if any, are taxed on an increase upon the original gross, rather than the net figure, after tax investment. Capital losses are not available to offset against other non-business expansion scheme capital gains.
Response from the City has been good. City firms are forming business expansion scheme funds to pool individual investors' money and so to spread the cost of administration, and the risk. I estimate that nearly £50 million has been raised—although obviously all that has not yet been invested — by over 30 Inland Revenue—approved funds.
I believe strongly that competition between the funds to raise money is good because that provides the best protection for the individual investor over the level of fees and expenses. I should not like regulations to be introduced. I believe in the principle of free competition in the market place. The investor should be able to make up his own mind where to place his money.
Many funds will continue to raise amounts this year, and I hope in succeeding years, I hope that the £100 million figure can be reached by the end of this fiscal year in April 1985, despite the welcome reduction in the top marginal tax rate from 75 per cent. to 60 per cent.
Investments have been made in a whole range of opportunities from management buy—outs, through franchises to venture capital. To the extent that money raised under the business expansion scheme is invested in venture capital projects, it is in direct competition with the more sophisticated and larger institutions such as the pension funds and insurance companies. By venture capital, I mean newly established commercial ventures, often involving high or new technology.
However, even the combined weight of investors' money from the business expansion scheme and institutions is modest compared with the amounts raised and invested in venture capital in the United States of America. Annually in the United States of America between $2 billion and $3 billion flows into venture capital partnerships. In the United Kingdom the figure is closer to £100 million from private, but probably mainly institutional, sources. Even allowing for our different gross national product, we have a long way to go in terms of investment flows into unquoted companies, particularly venture capital operations when compared with the United States.
At a more appropriate time I shall raise with a Treasury Minister certain other matters related to the scheme, particularly the point at which tax relief is given. I believe that greater incentive, simplicity and perhaps ordinance could be achieved by giving relief at the point of subscription to approved business expansion scheme funds rather than at the point of investment. I shall not argue that tonight because it is inappropriate.
I wish to discuss three areas of concern which fall well within the Department of Trade and Industry's responsibility. First, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister about advice to investors in business expansion scheme funds. On the cover of the offering circular a warning should be given to investors in much bolder and fuller text than that accepted at present by the Department. We should follow the example of the United States, where the Securities and Exchange Commission requires very clear warnings to be given to investors making high risk equity investments.
When the minimum five—year holding period runs out in 1988–89 I believe that some investors will be disillusioned about the liquidity and perhaps the inherent value of their investments. I am mindful of the great advantages introduced in the last Parliament in provisions enabling companies to buy back their own shares. Clearly that has helped to develop liquidity for equity in unquoted companies. Nevertheless, despite those excellent provisions, it is vitally important that investors are properly forewarned, so as to mitigate any loss of confidence in the business expansion scheme or its successors in later years. Cautious warning noises and, indeed, regulations from the Department are appropriate and are needed now and not later.
Secondly, in regard to the level of funds raised there is what I would describe as a gap developing in the venture capital market. Most of the money raised so far has been via the City of London, and institutions in the City have been responsible for preparing circulars and raising the money and then identifying investments. Inevitably most of the business expansion scheme funds have tended to consider investments of £100,000 or more. This is primarily for reasons of economy of scale because it costs almost as much to examine an investment proposition of £10,000 as it does for one of £1 million.
The other reason why City-based funds tend to look at investment propositions greater than £100,000 is the pressure of time to which I have already referred. There is pressure to invest money as quickly as possible because of the tax relief that arises for individual investors. Therefore, there is a gap. Very small unquoted companies, which may need less than £100,000, are finding it difficult to attract the interest and attention of City-based vehicles. It is often the very small businesses which are badly out

of gear; that is to say, they are borrowing too much debt in relation to their equity base and they need to raise additional outside equity. Such companies are mostly local in reputation and business activity.
One way to ensure that small investments are properly catered for is to encourage what I describe as the regionalisation of business expansion schemes so that more moneys are raised and invested locally rather than through the City of London. I should like to see more county-based business expansion scheme propositions, perhaps linked with local enterprise agencies, or initiated by local chambers of commerce or, indeed, by commercial banks.
Some have started, for example, in south Yorkshire and in Wessex. In my constituency I should like to see, and am working hard to secure the establishment of, a business expansion scheme for the county of Northamptonshire. Any local funds must be based on counties rather than on the relatively small provincial towns. Therefore, I intend to co-operate with my hon. Friends representing other constituencies in Northamptonshire to try to get one launched. My aim is to do that this year.
Raising money locally could be encouraged by local professional advisers such as solicitors and bankers who deal on a day-to-day basis with the local funds, not only of individuals who might have money to invest, but of local companies that might need equity investment. Often there is still great ignorance about the terms and conditions of business expansion schemes, which I regret. Locally based funds might be smaller but could be properly evaluated by those close to them, the advisers and investors who would know the companies in which they proposed to invest. I would like the Department of Trade and Industry and the clearing banks to take the initiative in promoting the creation of county or provincial town-based enterprise schemes.
The original intention of the business start-up scheme in 1981, as modified in 1982, was to concentrate the tax relief on venture capital opportunities. What has actually happened during the past year is that the scheme has broadened and, in a sense, has become simpler to understand and administer. However, the bulk of the money raised has gone into established businesses, rather than into venture capital opportunities. That is a great pity. The Department of Trade and Industry, through its excellent small firms advisory service, should offer advice not only to the business expansion scheme funds of the City but to those that, I hope, will spring up locally. It should help them to identify, and certainly evaluate, venture capital opportunities so that consistent rules of analysis and, indeed, of experience, can be spread throughout the country.
Ultimately, it may be necessary for Government to legislate and say that for business expansion scheme funds that are to be approved in future, tax approval will be granted only if one of the aims is to invest a minimum proportion in genuine venture capital opportunities. Whether that proportion should be 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. I shall not speculate tonight. It is important that, in some senses, we revert to the original intention in 1981–82, which was to offer tax relief and incentives to individuals who wished to invest in genuine start-up operations and businesses.
Over the longer term, I warmly endorse two ideas for further study. The first is the so—called CBI proposal, although it was originally canvassed by the Wilson


[Mr. Roger Freeman]
committee, of the small firms investment company concept. That is really an extension of the business expansion scheme. The SFIC, which is modelled on the small business investment company as used in the United States, would be a trading public company with similar tax provisions as apply to the business expansion scheme funds. It would be simpler to administer because investors would get tax relief upon subscription to the small firms investment company and not upon individual investment in the underlying companies.
Investors could sell their shares in the SFIC—one expects readily. This is not so with the business expansion scheme funds. They would, of course, be subject to Inland Revenue restrictions. The SFIC would have both individual and institutional shares—a mix of the two—and invest not only in equity but in debt instruments of companies.
In parallel with the business expansion scheme, the Government should consider encouraging greater investment in research and development through tax reforms and, specifically, through facilitating and encouraging research and development partnerships, such as exist in the United States. It is vital that we encourage companies in this country with outside finance to invest in research and development. There is a genuine and excellent case for tax relief in that area.
The business expansion scheme is an excellent innovation. It has been successful so far and a tribute to the Government's determination to encourage the private sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have one or two comments to make on the modest but relevant suggestions that I have made.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on his initiative in raising the subject of the business expansion scheme. With his customary diligence, he deployed a number of interesting suggestions which are worthy of close examination.
As my hon. Friend said, this novel and highly imaginative scheme is one year old. Clearly it is too early to say how successful it has been in achieving its aims, and there is obvious merit in giving it more time to settle down before considering any further changes. My hon. Friend said that, and he was right. The introduction of the scheme has been widely welcomed, and indications of take-up are, generally, most encouraging.
I begin by briefly reminding the House about the underlying aims of the scheme. As my hon. Friend said, the present business expansion scheme replaced the earlier business start-up scheme introduced in 1981. Like its predecessor, the purpose of the present scheme is to encourage individuals to invest on a reasonably long-term basis in new, genuinely additional and full risk equity of unquoted trading companies with which the investor is not otherwise connected.
The scheme recognises the risky nature of this type of investment. The investor gets relief, up front, at his full marginal rate or rates of income tax. He retains that relief, provided only that he holds on to his investment for at least five years and that the company continues to satisfy the qualifying conditions.
The underlying aim of the scheme is to encourage new and expanded activity in the small firms sector. This sector is vitally important as a source of new jobs and prosperity. The aim of the scheme is also, of course, to encourage investment in those high-risk activities to which my hon. Friend referred, where the risks to the investor will be at least to some extent commensurate with the generous level of relief.
There is the wide range of eligible trades spanning all industrial sectors — manufacturing, services and distribution — but the scheme is not for essentially passive or financial operations, so that certain activities are excluded; for example, dealing in land or commodities, leasing and letting assets on hire, banking, insurance and other financial services.
I wish to stress that there is no implication intended that these activities are in some sense unworthy. It is simply that activities of this kind do not need the incentive provided by the expansion scheme for their development.
As the House will know, we are proposing just one change to the scheme in this year's Finance Bill. We propose to exclude farming as a qualifying trade. Again, no implication is intended that this is somehow an unworthy activity. It is simply that the ownership of farmland cannot be said to fall within the kind of high risk areas at which the scheme is directed.
It will be some time before we have firm figures about amounts invested under the scheme in the first year. This is partly because, for administrative reasons, claims for relief in the first year could not be made until 1 January 1984. But there can also be a long gap between the original investment and the claim for relief in the case of start-up companies. This is because, under the rules, relief cannot be claimed until the company has completed four months' trading, and companies are allowed up to two years from the issue of the shares to start trading. But I can give some figures.
Under the scheme, an individual can either invest directly in target companies, or via an investment fund approved by the Inland Revenue. In the latter case, the individual—not the fund—is still the beneficial owner of the shares and, like the direct investor, he gets relief only when his money is actually invested in target companies. Whilst many individuals may be prepared to undertake direct investment, it seems probable that the bulk of investment under the scheme will be channelled via the approved funds. My hon. Friend touched on this matter and I agree with him.
They can offer the investor expertise in the selection of target companies in which to invest, and the opportunity to spread their risk.
So far, 34 funds have been approved by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 and the Inland Revenue, including six which have been brought forward from the start-up scheme and reapproved. We have firm figures for subscriptions to 29 of these funds, which have actually closed now for subscription. Including about £11 million which has been carried forward by the old start-up funds, the amount so far raised—nearly all of which would have been available for investment in 1983–84—is about £44 million. The remaining five funds which have been approved, but which have not yet closed for subscription, are planning to raise a minimum of £8 million in total, but


hope to raise up to £20 million. The money raised by these funds will, of course, be available for investment in 1984–85.
Not all of the £44 million available to the funds for investment in 1983–84 will actually have been invested in that year. But, whilst we do not yet have firm figures, it seems probable that at least 80 per cent. — say £36 million—will have been invested by 5 April 1984. To this must be added the amounts individuals have invested directly.
It is also too early to predict now many individual investors and companies have taken advantage of the scheme, or what are the average amounts being invested by each individual and in each company. Like my hon. Friend, I would be very interested in the figures. It seems probable, however, that many different kinds of company have benefited from the scheme. It is the stated intention of many of the approved funds to invest in a mixture of start-up and established companies, and in amounts ranging from as little as £25,000 up to £500,000 and possibly more. The areas covered include manufacturing concerns, a wide variety of service industries, computers, information technology, hotels and shops.
The BES is of course only a part of the range of policies which the Government have developed over the past five years to help small firms. It is essential for the economy that we have a flourishing small firms sector and we have paid too little attention to this area in the past.
This is not the time to review everything we have done to redress the balance in favour of the smaller firm. Nor would I claim that everything possible has now been achieved. My postbag keeps me well aware of how much remains to be done. But looking at the question of availability of finance, which is the area of most relevance to this debate, there have been substantial improvements since 1979.
The BES is an important part of this encouragement and has made a major contribution to the growth of venture capital. It needs to be seen as part of a general policy to ensure that small firms have access to a full range of financial resources, including equity, and are not disadvantaged in relation to larger competitors.
It is, as I have said, still early days for the scheme. We are still seeing new experiments being set up and I welcome these intitiatives. It is, I believe, fair to say that most use has been made of the scheme by the approved funds for making investments over £100,000, which is a substantial sum. Some smaller investments have been made by funds, and of course there are investments made direct by individuals which are limited to a maximum of £40,000 to be eligible for tax relief, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it remains difficult for a firm to obtain an equity investment of, say between £20,000 and £50,000.
I hope that further experiment will result in the BES contributing to this smaller scale of investment, although I recognise that there are high costs involved in this type

of activity. I know that much thought is being given by a number of people round the country to the ways in which locally based investment funds or clubs or syndicates might operate. I am sure that this will bear fruit in the coming months, and I shall be more than pleased if my hon. Friend can encourage this sort of development in his constituency or county.
These local initiatives must come from the business community itself, but my hon. Friend is able and obviously, from what he said, very willing to lead in that direction. I am certainly prepared to consider whether it would be appropriate for my Department to issue noties for guidance on setting up a local fund, but I must emphasise that we are at a stage of experiment. I do not want to stifle local initiatives by Government intervention. I cannot comment on what role, if any, the banks might play in these initiatives, although their support for the local enterprise agency movement, which is well known, is welcomed by me and the Department. It is certainly one way in which they can support local initiatives.
My hon. Friend suggested that my Department should provide specific assistance directed at the evaluation and appraisal of applications for funds from start-ups. Those matters must be left to the commercial judgment of fund managers.
My hon. Friend raised the question whether, given the nature of the investments made, a stronger health warning —my term, not his—should be included in invitations for subscriptions by BES funds. The whole structure of the existing law on investor protection is, of course, under review following the report by Professor Gower on this subject. I do not feel that it is appropriate to suggest individual changes yet. I should point out that the "health warning" used is set out in the Inland Revenue guidelines to approved funds and must be displayed prominently on the front of the document. The invitation must also refer to the risks involved in investments of this kind and some of the difficulties that may be experienced in selling shares in unquoted companies.
As I have said, I believe that the business expansion scheme to be an important and innovative measure which reflects the Government's commitment to the encouragement of the small business sector. Naturally, my right: hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry will monitor the BES closely to ensure that it continues to operate effectively, but in doing so it will be essential that the scheme is not made too restrictive. Debates such as these are most helpful to the process of evaluating the BES and considering suggestions about its operation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to this important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.